Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Criminal Justice System

Si�n James: What progress is being made on the review of the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The review was published in July last year and set out a clear timetable for delivery. The majority of the things that we said we would do by December were completed on time, and we are making good progress towards meeting our April commitments. We will publish a further update shortly.

Si�n James: I appreciate the Minister's response. For the purposes of the review, will he look at the effective work being undertaken against crime and antisocial behaviour in Blaen-y-Maes in my constituency and incorporate that good practice into the review? That represents good progress, not the hug a hoodie culture that the Opposition are talking about.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I fully understand what my hon. Friend is saying. I am pleased about the work that goes on in Wales and in her constituency, where she recently made a visit to see it. The work that is going on between the Welsh Assembly, local government and local communities in support of the police is to be commended. We are looking into what can be done in terms of antisocial behaviour orders and community sentencing to ensure that our communities feel a lot safer.

Douglas Hogg: When the Minister reviews the criminal justice system, will he be very chary about coming forward with any more substantive Bills? The Criminal Justice Act 2003 has proved singularly indigestible. Might I suggest that he spends more time in the Home Office in implementation and enforcement instead of on the process of legislation?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is well known for his involvement in these issues, so we take into consideration what he says to us. He will know, however, that the 2003 Act was important in ensuring that protecting the public is our first priority. The Home Secretary has been reviewing all the actions that were taking place in the Home Office. We look at legislation in the context of how appropriate it is not only in defeating crime but in ensuring that the public are protected.

Bob Blizzard: May I urge my hon. Friend not to listen to the views recently expressed by Lord Woolf on sentencing for people convicted of murder? Most people in my constituency tell me that sentences are not long enough, and they do not find credible the idea that people should be let out even earlier. If we want the public to co-operate with the police and to play their part in tackling crime, they must feel that once people are convicted, they are properly punished.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, who is clear, as I am, that the public must be protected from people who need to serve the sentences for the crimes for which they are responsible and that the public would expect them to serve. This is a robust debate. It is important that we consider these issues in the context of ensuring that the public have confidence in the criminal justice system. They will not understand if they are not protected from people who commit heinous crimes and are not in prison for the period that they should be.

Nicholas Clegg: The Minister referred to the importance of the public having confidence in the criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor said this weekend that for that to happen, clarity in sentencing is required. I entirely agree. Does the Minister believe that there is a problem in trying to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system given that, for instance, life sentences now average about 11 years in custody and that 53 so-called lifers who were sentenced in 2000 have already been released? Does not he think that it is time to review all this, to abandon some of the doublespeak that surrounds sentencing, and to apply life sentences only in cases where the courts believe that they should be applied and that is to the most serious offenders who should remain in prison for the rest of their lives?

Gerry Sutcliffe: It is important that the courts decide on sentences; that is why we have the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which is made up of the judiciary with Home Office representatives as observers. In the 2003 Act, we ensured that dangerous criminalspeople who were a danger to societyhad indeterminate sentences. We must ensure that that continues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would share my view that it is important that the public can have confidence in knowing that dangerous criminals will be in prison. That was not the case before the 2003 Act.

Nick Herbert: Under the Government's vision of simple, speedy summary justice, the police issued 146,000 penalty notices for disorder last year, including to serial shoplifters. The offenders do not receive a criminal record, the tickets involve no admission of guilt and only about half are paid before court action. How many of those so-called offences brought to justice are enforced? How can they possibly count as sanction detections when there is no real sanction?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman wants it both ways. He wants the police to have the flexibility to deal with situations on the ground in our communities but then argues about bureaucracy in the police service. He cannot have it both ways. We are pleased with the simple, speedy, fast and fair system that we are putting in place. Fixed penalties play their part in that.

Departmental Co-ordination

David Gauke: What steps he plans to take to improve co-ordination between the different sections and services of his Department.

John Reid: Since we published three reform plans in July last year, I have taken several steps to ensure that joined-up services throughout the Department are improved. They include end-to-end processes for offender management, against which the Opposition voted, end-to-end improvement of the surveillance of asylum applications and, from next month, the establishment of the national policing improvement agency. The Department's reform programmes are also making several changes to structures, processes and ways of working that will improve co-ordination further.

David Gauke: Given that the Home Secretary's predecessor essentially lost his job because of failures in co-ordination between the immigration and nationality directorate and the Prison Serviceeven now, I have heard of a case of a foreign prisoner who was released rather than deported because of co-ordination failuresdoes he believe that progress has been satisfactory and that it would be better served by having the two services in two separate Departments?

John Reid: The non sequitur in the question is that the failings to which the hon. Gentleman referred are a perfect illustration of why being in one Department is no guarantee of good co-ordination. The function of co-ordinating and improving co-ordination is essential, whether it is within a Department or between Departments.
	The hon. Gentleman knows that we are improving the National Offender Management Service. We brought proposals for that before the House. We are improving policing by rolling out neighbourhood policing. We are also improving the immigration and nationality directoratewe publish plans and key indicators for that. We are reviewing counter-terrorism, among many other matters, as well as the Home Office plan. We are making progress on all those matters and we will report publicly on them. However, whatever configuration is used for those units, co-ordination in a Department and between Departments is essential.

Keith Vaz: On 22 June 2004, I raised in an Adjournment debate the case of my constituent James Bishop, who was killed by a Chinese national, Mr. Yin. Due to lack of co-ordination at IND, he was removed before being prosecuted fully for the offence. I appreciate that the Home Secretary will not have the answer today, but will he write to me to confirm that the promises made during that debate have been fulfilled and that the co-ordination of such cases has been improved?

John Reid: Yes, I undertake to write to my right hon. Friend about the case.

James Clappison: Under the Government, the immigration and nationality directorate has presided over a substantial increase in net migration of up 185,000 in 2005the last year for which we have figures. Is any other part of the Home Office co-ordinating that figure with the demands of migration on housing infrastructure and the implications for population density, or does it remain the case that the Government see no obvious upper limit to migration, to use the words of the Home Secretary's predecessor?

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is precisely the reason for the need to reconfigure and improve our services in the Home Office. Three of the main issues, among many others with which we dealinternational migration, international crime and international terrorismhave grown exponentially in the past decade and a half. We therefore need to undertake improvements and consider reconfiguration to concentrate on managing migration, countering international terrorism and coping with international crime. As part of that, we proposed a migration advisory commission, which would examine independentlyand offer independent advice ona range of issues related to the optimum amount of immigration. That would mean consideration of wider issues than purely and narrowly defined economic matters.

Edward Garnier: Why does the Home Secretary believe that turning one dysfunctional Department into two dysfunctional Departments will improve matters for the public as opposed to separating the Home Secretary from responsibility for the shameful state of our overcrowded prisons and the early release of dangerous offenders?

John Reid: I do not think that the Home Office has been dysfunctional in all its aspects. For instance, in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency, there are something like 257 more police officers than there were under the previous Conservative Government, as well as 155 police community support officers. If he looks at the crime statistics for Harborough, he will see that there has been a 5 per cent. fall in burglary and a 25 per cent. fall in the theft of motor vehicles. In terms of reducing crime and putting more police on the streets, the Home Office has been a damned sight more functional than ever it was under the Conservatives. Having said that, we are facing mass migration on a scale hitherto unprecedented globally, international terrorism at a level that was not even contemplated a decade ago, and the international crime associated with both, and it is therefore right that we should consider the reconfiguration of our efforts to deal with them. When the facts change, we change our views and our structures. That is what sensible people do.

Edward Garnier: I can assure the Home Secretary that there are not 247 police officers in the Harborough constituencyfar from it. Does he not think that the public have a right to expect from Home Office Ministers some strategic political leadership and managerial competence on prisons, violent crime, drug crime, early release from custody of serious criminals, immigration and asylum, border controls, and getting rather more than one in 58 police officers on to the beat? Instead, over the past 10 years, we have had to put up with a flood of repealed or incompetent legislation, and incompetent, disjointed, headline-grabbing schemes that have had no substance or that have been cancelled or replaced within weeks. Instead of spending time in bars co-ordinating their diaries with lobbyists, should not Ministers be spending their time working for the public and dealing with the mess that they have made

Mr. Speaker: Order.

John Reid: The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is infamous for stooping low, never surprises us by his capacity to go even lower. Is he complaining that we have a record number of police on our streets, or that we have seen a 35 per cent. reduction in the crime rate? Is he complaining that we have campaigned ceaselessly on a whole range of antisocial behaviours, or that we have put more resources than ever into fighting crime? Or will he admit that, on every single occasion, he and his colleagues have voted against the money, the resources and the energies involved? We do not need to take lectures from a party whose Government doubled crime, when we have cut it by a third.

Drug-related Crime

David Burrowes: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of measures to combat drug-related crime.

Vernon Coaker: The most recent published crime figures show that the strategy is working. Recorded acquisitive crime, to which drug-related crime makes a substantial contribution, has fallen by 20 per cent. since the onset of the drug interventions programme, which is now getting on average more than 3,000 drug misusing offenders into drug treatment each month. The Home Office is carrying out an ongoing research programme to look at the effectiveness of individual programme components.

David Burrowes: Given that the Minister's own Department's report in 2005 on determining the effectiveness of drug treatment interventions concluded that
	there is strong evidence that the most effective interventions to reduce drug-related crime are therapeutic communities,
	why are there so few residential rehabilitation centres, particularly for young people, and why are only 18 prisons offering intensive therapeutic programmes?

Vernon Coaker: We have made considerable resources available to the drugs sector to ensure that services are available, whatever the needs of the individuals concerned. We have introduced the drug interventions programme to ensure that people who commit a trigger offence in the DIP areas can be tested on arrest; those who commit such offences in other areas can be tested on charge. Others might come into the system through the health sector. GPs will then allocate them to services as appropriate. I cannot see the hon. Gentleman objecting to the significant increases in budgets; this year, we have invested 1.5 billion in drug-related services in this country. That is a huge increase, compared with the situation a few years ago.

Anne Snelgrove: Does my hon. Friend agree that detection is important in combating drug-related crime? Will he join me in congratulating the Wiltshire constabulary, which has detected and shut down crack houses and cannabis farms in Swindon? Does he also agree that local, neighbourhood policing is extremely important for detecting low-level drug pushers and other young people who get involved in drug-related crime?

Vernon Coaker: Since the introduction of the drugs intervention programme more than 69,000 drug-misusing offenders have entered treatment, and many will be treated in Swindon and elsewhere in Wiltshire. The Government's drugs strategy has succeeded because it is about bringing people treatment not just through the criminal justice system, but through the health service and through self-referral. All that is now working, not only in Swindon but across the country.

Jeremy Hunt: Given the link between drug-related crime and drug-infested prisons, does it worry the Minister that at a prison that I visited, often the only penalty imposed on visitors discovered carrying drugs on their way to meet a prisoner was not to be allowed to make a contact visit to that prisoner? When will the Government get tough on drugs in prisons?

Vernon Coaker: The Government are already getting tough on drugs in prisons. The Offender Management Bill, which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) has just steered through the House, contains a range of measures to deal with some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
	I have already given figures relating to the increase in investment in drug treatment outside prisons. Let me add that in 1996-97, 7.2 million was spent on drug treatment in prisons. In 2006-07, 77.3 million was spent on it974 per cent. more. Of course, we must ensure that there is good management and that the system is made more effective, and we will do that.

Madeleine Moon: Operation Tarion, conducted throughout south Wales, hasalong with a taskforce of police throughout Wales achieved the highest-ever cocaine haul in the area, resulting in many arrests, and police in Bridgend F division have also made a number of drug arrests recently. Successful policing can actually reduce the anxiety of people who observe the prevalence of drugs in their communities. How can we reassure the public when the police succeed in making such high-level arrests?

Vernon Coaker: At a strategic national and international level the Serious and Organised Crime Agency is responsible for the seizure of cocaine and other drugs, but we also have neighbourhood policing. The interaction of police at local level is extremely important. If we are to overcome local anxiety about drugs, the police must engage with local communitiesas they do in the best neighbourhood modelsand explain to them what they are doing. People across the country tell me that they do not worry when the police take action over dealers in the street; what worries them is dealers' being seen to act with impunity. When the police take action, as they have in my hon. Friend's constituency in south Wales and elsewhere, we should get behind them, because people want to see the dealers where they should bein prison.

Humfrey Malins: In the courts where I sit, every class A drug addict defendant began his or her life on cannabis. Does the Minister accept that cannabis in its current form is much stronger than it used to be, and is deeply damaging to young and vulnerable people? If he does, will he send a message to the courts and the police to take cannabis much more seriously, and will he raise its classification from C to B to signal our worry about the problem?

Vernon Coaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in this issue. I think the message we must send is that cannabis remains an illegal drug which causes immense harm to communities. We know that skunk causes a particular problem. Recognising that, the Government recently issued a series of television and other advertisements under the title Brain Store in an attempt to show young people, in particular, the link between cannabis and mental illness. There will be a continuing debate about drug classification, but I think the message we should send today is that cannabis remains a dangerous drug and is illegal.

Sally Keeble: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Northamptonshire police on their effective programme of crack house closures, especially in the town centre, where they have dealt with a great many drug-related crime problems? Does he agree, however, that the programme would be much more effective if there were cross-party consensus, particularly involving the Liberal Democrat Opposition?

Vernon Coaker: The power to close crack houses was introduced by this Government. As my hon. Friend says, that was opposed by the Liberal Democrats. It is an important tool that the police have available to them to tackle drug-related crime.
	The Government drugs strategy is simple. We want to see tough enforcement of the law. There has to be a real clampdown on people who deal in drugs in our communities. Alongside that we want to see education for our children and for others in society, and an expansion in and more effective use of treatment. As I say, we need to have not an either/or policy, but an all-inclusive policy.

Prisons (Drug Use)

Michael Jack: What steps his Department is taking to reduce drug taking in prisons.

Gerry Sutcliffe: To tackle drug use in custody, the National Offender Management Service has in place a comprehensive drug strategy. The strategy's three key aims are to reduce the amount of illicit drugs getting in by using a co-ordinated range of supply-reduction measures; to reduce the demand for drugs through delivery of effective drug treatment; and to strengthen through-care links with the community, helping to ensure timely continuity of care for drug users on release. While NOMS remains committed to doing more, the drug strategy is already making significant progress, with drug useas measured by random mandatory drug testingdown from 24.4 per cent. in 1996-97 to 10.3 per cent. in 2004-05, a reduction of 58 per cent.

Michael Jack: I thank the Minister for that encyclopaedic answer. I am sure that he will appreciate the seriousness with which Kirkham prison in my constituency takes fighting drug and alcohol addiction by prisoners. He will be aware of the use that it has made of the counselling, advice, referral, assessment and throughcareor CARATprogramme. The integrated drug treatment service now beckons. Kirkham wishes to adopt that because it wants to do better in countering recidivism. When can Kirkham expect that particular facility to be made available to it?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his involvement in all aspects of Kirkham's work. It has a proud record in dealing with drug treatment. He will recognise the improvement that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), talked about: the increase in the drug treatment budget of 974 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman made the point about the integrated drug treatment service, which is additional funding. It is going into up to 45 of our prisons. At the moment it is mainly concerned with the first 28 days of custody, and it is more likely to be rolled out in remand prisons because that is where the biggest problem is seen to be. I take his point that we need to look at prisoners who are on releasemost of the prisoners in Kirkham are shortly to be released. We will do that through the National Offender Management Service. I do not charge him personally, but the Opposition voted against the Offender Management Bill. It is important that actions from that Bill are initiated to ensure that we deal with offenders. The release of offenders with drug and other problems is an important matter. We will look at the issue that he raised. Clearly, there is an issue about people coming out of prison with a drug habit.

Andrew MacKinlay: My constituents would like to know from the Minister why 749,000 was paid in compensation to prisoners in an out-of-court settlement, plus costs, for the messing up, of their detoxification programme. Either the Government should have resisted those claims, or we need to be told what went wrong. It is unacceptable that taxpayers' money should be squandered in that way.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I have some sympathy with his argument, but he will have to ask the courts why they took the decision [Interruption.] The courts were involved in what the outcome was likely to be in terms of the recommendations of the legal people. He will know that that matter relates to treatments in the 1990s. Those cases were reluctantly settled out of court because we had to minimise the cost to the taxpayer.

Vincent Cable: May I add to the Minister's three points the need to persuade young offenders in prison of the need to find alternative sources of employment that are at least as remunerative as drug dealing? What success has the Department had in ensuring that young people who leave offenders institutions have legally marketable skills?

Gerry Sutcliffe: Again, I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman raises that point and yet voted against the NOMS Bill, which enabled the voluntary sector which has expertise in reducing offending among young people. We are trying to reduce reoffending by using all the agencies available to us, whether from the public, private or voluntary sector. It is important that we get the message across to young people that reoffending leads to a life of crime. We must cut the reoffending rates and the NOMS Bill is a way to do that, so I look forward to it to receiving more support when it returns to this House.

Laura Moffatt: On a recent visit to Wandsworth prison I was very taken with the Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners trustRAPtprogramme. In assessing how well drug programmes work in prisons, will my hon. Friend take into account the support given by prison governors, because it seemed to me that the absolute support for that programme from the governor at Wandsworththere was a dedicated unit and it was ensured that the programme had all that it neededcontributed greatly to its success?

Gerry Sutcliffe: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who was at the open day at HMP Wandsworthalong with, I understand, many other Members of Parliament, who were impressed by the work of RAPt. Its chief executive is Mike Trace, who used to be the deputy drugs tsar. It offers a 20-week programme and uses a 12-step approach. The exciting news is that 850 prisoners a year stopped using drugs as a result of their engagement with RAPt. We want to encourage such programmes, so we will look with great interest at how the RAPt programme can be rolled out nationally.

Julie Kirkbride: The Minister will be aware that access to drugs in prison is a major problem. What assessment has he made of the Holloway scheme, whereby dogs with handlers are used to sniff out drugs among prisonersand perhaps might even sniff out drugs being brought into prison by visitors? Does he intend to roll-out that scheme across the nation's prisons?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question, because she is right to highlight that there are now many ingenious ways that drugs are brought into prisons. I am grateful for the work of the Prison Officers Association, prison officers in general and prison governors, who are doing their best to stop that inflow. Tennis balls have been used to get drugs into prison; the balls are bounced over walls. We must ensure that we keep the balance right between stopping the drugs coming into prisons and also allowing visits to take place. The use of sniffer dogs is an option, but we must also look at the ways that telephone calls are monitored and visitors are inspected, to make sure that those who act unscrupulously are found out.

Brian Iddon: May I refer my hon. Friend to an article written by prisoner Peter Wayne in the current edition of Druglink? He has been involved for 30 years in committing petty crime to fund his drug habit. In most of the prisons that he has been in, he has been detoxifiedobviously without any result. His latest visit is to Wandsworth prison, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) mentioned. He has been admitted to a drug-free wing where he is involved in a harm reduction programme. Does my hon. Friend agree that harm reduction programmes are more successful in prisons than detoxification?

Gerry Sutcliffe: It is important to have a mixture of all the potential solutions. We know that up to 80 per cent. of offenders have some relationship with a drug problem at some stage in their time inside or outside prison, so we are dealing with a large problem. We have increased the investment in addressing it, but we would like to widen the opportunities to be successful. We have heard about the RAPt programme in Wandsworth, and we are looking at a range of measures that the voluntary sector can bring about. In an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall last week, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) talked about the need for us all to unite to tackle drugs in prisons. There is an opportunity for us to have a sensible debate about what are the most effective ways to stop drugs being in prisons.

Victim and Witness Support

Shahid Malik: What steps he is taking to improve support for victims and witnesses; and if he will make a statement.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Government are firmly committed to rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of victims and witnesses. We have introduced extensive reforms, including a victims' surcharge to divert money from offenders to victims, a significant increase in resources for Victim Support from 11.7 million in 1997 to 30 million now, 165 new witness care units to provide tailored support during trial, and a code of practice to give victims statutory rights for the first time.

Shahid Malik: My hon. Friend will be aware that according to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office there are some 250 victims of forced marriage a year. In addition, more than 12 million women and 2 million men suffer from domestic violence of one form or another. I know that the Minister will agree with me that one victim of forced marriage or domestic violence is one too many, but what steps are the Government taking to ensure a better co-ordinated response from social services to maximise support for victims and help eradicate those grotesque practices?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and for the work that he does in his constituency and throughout the country raising those issues. He will know that the Government's national plan for domestic violence covers forced marriages. We have screening in health and social care settings and training for professionals in those sectors and the criminal justice system, so that people are dealt with in a supportive fashion and their cases understood. Since 2005, we have set up 64 specialist domestic violence courts and on 5 March 2007 we announced 2 million for the multi-agency risk assessment conferences.

Peter Bone: The Minister will be aware that the victims of human trafficking need a lot of care after they are found. They often need support in safe houses. With the exception of the POPPY project in London, which deals only with adults, we do not have enough of those houses. What is the Government's position on expanding programmes such as the POPPY project?

Gerry Sutcliffe: It is important that we try to use the full resources available to resettle victims. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is difficult to find accommodation when resettling prisoners, and the situation is similar for the victims of trafficking. It is important that we provide support in a range of areas, including sometimes medical support, and we are working with various Departments and the Local Government Association to see what further support can be offered.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister will know that there is still a long way to go, for example in cases of child abuse. The sad thing that one discovers, in Cheshire at any rate, is that it is only the commitment of one particular female police officer that provides support for very badly damaged families in nightmare situations. Will he look closely at the issue of co-ordinating support services, because families are still being very badly served?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work in her constituency and beyond on these issues and for raising those important points. What is important is the education of the public and the agencies about those issues to ensure that people fully understand the implications and the impact on people's lives of what takes place. We are seeing a better level of training and the involvement of the police and those in criminal justice agencies, who are working with social services and health. We cannot be complacent, because we have to do more, and we are trying to do more.

Jim Devine: Have we sent guidance to local departments of public prosecution advising them how to keep up to date and inform the victims of crime and witnesses, so that they can be sure that they do not meet the perpetrators walking down the street? Is the guidance robust and is it being applied consistently throughout the UK?

Gerry Sutcliffe: There is national guidance on witness support. The Government have introduced witness support units, and victim care units are being piloted. We recognise the problems with supporting and keeping victims and witnesses informed. What tends to happen is that the act of crime takes place, the criminal justice system takes over and witnesses and victims are left behind in the process. We are working hard on that and I am especially pleased with the work that has been carried out with the Victim Support voluntary organisation, which is trying to bring together its organisation on a national basis to offer support for victims.

Knife Crime

Andrew MacKay: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of measures to combat knife crime.

John Reid: I wish to begin by offering my personal condolences and, I am sure, those of the whole House to all the loved ones, relations and family of the recent victims of the tragic and awful knife crimes.
	The Government fully recognise the seriousness of the issue of knife crime and have put in place a variety of measures, encompassing legislation, enforcement, education and prevention to address it. We will continue to work in partnership with the police and local communities to get those weapons off our streets.

Andrew MacKay: In supporting the Home Secretary's condolences, may I remind him that a particularly vicious crime was committed 18 months ago in my constituency? Two teenagers were stabbed to death in Finchampstead and the case is now before the Crown court. At the time and afterwards, with the backing of Ministers, I gave the victims' families assurances that action would be taken, but in light of the latest dreadful murders over the past few days, I think that they all have the right to feel that we have collectively let them down. What more can we do?

John Reid: The right hon. Gentleman is right: we need to take action before, as well as during and after, the awful headlines that we have seen. Perhaps I can reassure him and some of his constituentsif not about the terrible recurrence and instance of such awful crimesabout the fact that we have been taking action. Just a few weeks ago on 12 February, for instance, we doubled the maximum sentence for possession of a lethal weapon or knife in a public place without good reason. In a few weeks from now, on 6 April, we will implement the new offence of using someone to mind a weapon; if the weapon is a knife, the maximum sentence will be four years. We had already planned a few weeks after that to give school staff powers to search pupils for weapons. Those are among the range of measures we have introduced.
	In addition to the measures we have brought in over the past few months, I can announce to the House two more steps that I hope will assist in combating knife crime. First, I have authorised that, as from next month, data on serious violent offences involving the specific use of knives and sharp instruments will be separately collected so that we can provide a more detailed understanding of the prevalence of the problem than is currently available. Secondly, we will improve facilities to allow the public to play an even greater part in providing the authorities with information on knife and gun crime. I have today spoken with the chief executive of Crimestoppers to see what additional work can be undertaken to encourage the public to report offences, and will shortly have a meeting with the organisation on that subject.
	Finally, I have spoken today to Assistant Commissioner Tim Godwin of the Metropolitan police about the specific events of the recent tragedies, and I urge anyone with information about the deaths of Kodjo Yenga or Adam Regis to contact the Metropolitan police. More generally of course, people can provide information about gun or knife crime through the Crimestoppers number, which is 0800 55511.

John Denham: Last Thursday, two of my constituents, Susan Hale and Sarah Merritt, were found murderedreportedly stabbed to deathin a flat in the Townhill Park area of Southampton. The man initially sought by the police has been arrested and now, like the victims' family and friends, we must wait for justice to take its course. However, reports of the incident highlight the fact that not all knife crime has young people as its victims or that they are necessarily the assailants. Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that in the renewed focus on knife crime and knife violence in our society we will look carefully at all the circumstances in which knives are used in crimes of violence so that we have a full picture and can tackle every aspect of those dreadful crimes?

John Reid: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I think that I can give him that assurance. We have more police than ever before, as well as more police community support officers. We will bring in more powers to sentence where it is appropriate, and for longer in particular circumstances. At the end of the day, neither the Government nor the authorities, nor more powers nor more police, can on their own tackle the problem. Unless we empower communities and engage the whole community as partners in the fight against knife and gun crime and other violent crime, and emphasise the role of parental and personal responsibility as well as the police and powers, we shall not achieve our aim of combating those crimes effectively. I agree that there is a need for particular information about a range of circumstances, and I hope that my announcement today about data collection on violent crimes where knives are involved is a step in the right direction.

Patrick Cormack: Although I do not doubt for a moment the Home Secretary's commitment on this matter, may I ask him for an assurance that, by the time schools return from their Easter holidays, all inner-city schools will be adequately monitored to ensure that pupils do not go to school possessing these weapons? It is deeply disturbing that so many of the apparent perpetrators are of school age.

John Reid: As I have already said, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern and, as of May, we are giving school staff powers to search pupils for weapons. As I said, those powers and police presence alone will not solve the problem, but they are a necessary part of the solution. May I correct the telephone number that I provided a few moments ago? Crimestoppers is 0800 555 111.

Clive Efford: I join the Secretary of State in sending condolences to the families and others affected by these tragic incidents. Will he join me in urging people to redouble their efforts to engage with young people in the community in order to divert them from such crime? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding what the Government have already achieved through youth offending teams, for example, his Department should work with the Department for Communities and Local Government and others to provide further resources to help local communities to come together and tackle this crime? We need to work with young people to stop them getting involved in the first place.

John Reid: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, which is one of the reasons why, before this recent terrible spate of deaths and attacks associated with knife crime, we had a round table meeting that brought together not just the Government and local authorities, but local, voluntary and charitable organisations. We need to go further and involve other Departmentsit is a cross-departmental Government issueparticularly the Department for Education and Skills. It is no consolation to any of us to know that the incidence of knife crime, which is in the order of 6 to 7 per cent. of all violent crime, has remained relatively stable. That is a cold statistic, but it conceals within it some of the terrible tragedies that happen when these weapons are used. I am sure that the whole House wants to do everything possiblenot just within the Government, but throughout the country in the communities and in local governmentto make sure that we combat it.

Greg Hands: Kodjo Yenga was tragically murdered on Hammersmith grove in my constituency last week and I would like to put on record my sympathy for the family and my praise for Hammersmith and Fulham police for acting and getting on the scene extremely quickly. Hammersmith and Fulham police and the British Transport police have been very effective in recent months in monitoring and examining the prevalence of knives in Hammersmith centre; there have been a number of metal detector searches at Hammersmith bus station, and so on. The Home Secretary offers a solution of more data collection and more offences, but does he agree that it is time to look again at the regulations behind stop and search, particularly in London? The current practices of stopping and accounting for searches are simply not working. We need far greater prevalence of stop and search in areas such as Hammersmith centre.

John Reid: May I express, through the hon. Gentleman, our sympathy for the family of Kodjo Yenga, who was so tragically and awfully attacked, and say how sorry we are for what they are undergoing.
	We look at everything that can contribute towards a solution. I have not pretended to be offering a solution today, because I do not think that it is within the power of the Government alone to do so. As I said, personal and parental responsibility as well as the local community must be involved. However, there is an obligation on Government to give a lead and provide the powers, the authorities and the assistance to enable the communityin partnership with usto fight these terrible incidents. We will look at any means necessary to do that.
	On the particular issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, we have to be careful to recognise that, in taking some steps, we may with the best of intentions alienate the very communities that we seek to engage in partnership. I do not say that that is an easy question to resolve. The point that he has put to me has been put to me by people from all different backgrounds in the community. In the meantime, however, I think I will concentrate on the measures that I have brought forward today.

Meg Hillier: My right hon. Friend has had the chance to meet Hackney police and hear from their lips how crime has dropped by 16 per cent. in Hackney. There were nearly 3,000 fewer victims in the past year. However, the number of stabbings rose by a third in the same period and, as other Members have said, 25 per cent. of the victims of stabbing are aged between 15 and 20 years old. That is a big concern for those of us in Hackney with concerns about our young people.
	My right hon. Friend has explained all the hard measures that are in place in terms of sentencing, but could he outline what plans the Home Office has to put money into communities to support parents and community groups who are keen to tackle this problem from the inside rather than at the end point when someone has committed a crime and created a victim?

John Reid: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I very much appreciated her assisting me to meet members of the safer neighbourhoods teampolice, local councillors and many other local peoplewho are working in partnership and taking the matter into their own hands as well as their own heads so as to improve the local community. My hon. Friend is right to say that that cannot be done without local partnership and that is why, in answer to the specific question that she raised, I can tell her that, in the last couple of weeks alone, we have announced an additional 500,000 through the Connected fund to be made available to those in local communities who are fighting against the gangs who would use violence of any sort. I can also tell her that, in October, we will raise the age at which someone can purchase a knife from 16 to 18. I therefore hope that we are moving forward both in addressing the problem of young people using these weapons of violence and in assisting those in the community who are trying to combat that.

James Brokenshire: I join the Home Secretary and other hon. Members in passing the House's condolences to the families of Adam Regis, Kodjo Yenga, Father Paul Bennett, Keith Platt and other victims of knife violence.
	More than 230 knife-related violent crimes are reported every day. Youth Justice Board polling suggests that more than a quarter of all school pupils have carried a knife in the last year and nearly a third of all homicides now involve the use of a sharp instrument, yet Ministers emphasise the view that the terrible tragedies of the past few days are isolated incidents. Although I hear what the Home Secretary has said about the new measures to be brought forward, including those on the use of data and providing more qualitative assessments of the incidents and the information that is available, when will the Government recognise the full impact of the social and family breakdown and drug abuse that underline the causes of these appalling crimes? Is it not time that the Government focused more on the issues that will deliver more order on our streets rather than simply on delivering more laws and legislation?

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman should be careful of two things. The first is that in an attempt to understand the complex causes he does not fall into excusing it by referring to family backgrounds

James Brokenshire: indicated dissent.

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am cautioning him. It is one thing to understand the complexity of causation and another thing to provide an alibi for it. There is no excuse for using knives or guns to inflict such terrible damage on anyone.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman talks about the incidents not being isolated, but I have not in any way attempted to minimise the situation. I have said that it is no consolation even to know that the level of knife-associated violence is stable. However, we should not brand the large majority of young people as associated with this. They are the potential victims, not the perpetrators. No one is threatened as much as young people. Furthermore, it is not just young people or black people who are threatened; people of all ages are threatened when there is an acceptance of this situation.
	I am the first to accept that this is a complex situation, but, if one looks at addressing the underlying causesif they are deemed to be, in part, poverty, lack of education, family background, unemployment and deprivationwhat the Government have done in every one of those fields stands far better comparison than anything the hon. Gentleman's Government ever did in the almost 20 years that they were in power.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate

Kitty Ussher: What progress is being made on the review of the immigration and nationality directorate; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: Not only did we hit our target for 2006, removing a record number of illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers, but we have now published proposals to back our immigration service with extra powers, extra resources, new identity technology, and concerted action not just across the Home Office, but across public services as a whole.

Kitty Ussher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. While we are on the subject of Home Office reorganisation, does he recall the evidence given by Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch UK, to the Committee considering the UK Borders Bill, on which my hon. Friend and I both sit? On Tuesday last week, Sir Andrew Green said that a reorganisation to create a single border force, as proposed by the Opposition, is the last thing that should happen at this juncture

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementaries should not be about the Opposition.

Damian Green: The Minister's original response was unbelievably complacent. Will he confirm that, according to the director general of the immigration and nationality directorate, there are 1,300 foreign criminals who have served their sentence and whom the Department has failed to deport? They are either still in prison or in immigration removal centres. Two of those removal centres have recently been smashed upone of them only last weekprecisely because of the presence of hardened criminals. When are we going to see some practical results from the review instead of the non-stop stream of meaningless management-speak that has so far been the only outcome?

Liam Byrne: It is not entirely clear what the hon. Gentleman proposes. I assumein fact, this is the only conclusion that I can drawthat he thinks that we should let those people out while their cases are reviewed and while they drag their cases through the asylum and immigration tribunal. It is true that the measures that we propose in the UK Borders Bill will allow us to expedite their deportation and I look forward to the support of the Opposition. The real step backwards would be to cancel ID cards, as the hon. Gentleman proposes. They are precisely what Andrew Green spoke in favour of in the evidence given to the UK Borders Bill Committee. He added his voice to the voices of not only Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, but Sir Ian Blair, Lord Stevens and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The hon. Gentleman is increasingly setting himself up as the Luddite of law enforcement.

Fiona Mactaggart: In the review of the Department, will the Minister look at how long things take? Does he share my shock at the fact that he can be within his published deadlines and yet more than half of the applications decided take more than 70 working days? That is because of the long deadlines for uncharged applications and because 10 per cent. of charged applications can take more than 70 working days. Will he speed those figures up?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. There are plans, which we set out in the IND review, for exactly the kind of acceleration that she is looking for. However, where detailed checks need to be made as part of someone's application, it is right for immigration officers to do those checks so that we can be clear that we are giving the right entitlements to the right people.

Nicholas Soames: The hon. Gentleman sent me a helpful letter after I wrote to him about temporary admission. Does he agree that far too many people are not reporting back after they have been granted temporary admission and that, in fact, the rules relating to people who are granted temporary admission need to be tightened up considerably? Does he think that if there is any doubt at all in the minds of immigration officers, these people should be detained?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution. As he knows, I tried to write as detailed and thorough a response to him as possible, and I apologise for the slight injection of a delay that resulted. It is important that we keep those who apply for leave in this country under the closest possible review. Part of that involves ensuring that we have the systems to count people in and count people out of the country. We said something else last July: when there are people seeking asylum in this country, we should ensure that they are subject to electronic monitoring, or, when necessary, tagging. I hope that we will be able to hit that target, as we promised, in April.

Stewart Hosie: The review of IND will inevitably concentrate on issues relating to the three important announcements made in the past 12 months on the points-based migration system and the creation of the shortage occupation lists and the migration advisory committee. Will the Minister either give us a brief outline of the situation regarding those three important matters, or tell the House that he will come back soon to make a fuller statement on them?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful for that question. Last year we did indeed set out proposals for a migration advisory committee that would advise us on where in the economy migration would make sense and where it would not. I am delighted that the response to the consultation that we undertook showed that the proposal was overwhelmingly popularthis is another example of a popular Home Office measure. We will soon be able to bring forward the response to that consultation and the practical measures that will follow.

National Identity Card Scheme

David Taylor: When the network of enrolment centres required by the national identity card scheme will open.

Joan Ryan: The Identity and Passport Service is opening 69 new local offices, starting later this year, to meet in person and interview first-time passport applicants. Interviews are intended to deter and detect fraudulent passport applications.

David Taylor: We are told that the seductively named enrolment centres are, inter alia, essential to meet International Civil Aviation Organisation biometric passport requirements, but surely they could be met without the need for imposed attendance by digitising existing normal passport photographs. Is there not a risk that far from being the centrepiece of efforts to combat terrorism, illegal immigration, identity theft and benefit fraud, the centres could eventually help to create a hackable electronic leviathan containing 60 million detailed dossiers that could prove irresistible to international gangs of counterfeiters?

Joan Ryan: The majority of attempted frauds that are detected at present involve first-time adult applicants for passports. It is thus important that we take appropriate measures now to tackle that identity fraud. Although it might be a little inconvenient, asking people to travel something like 20 miles to a 20-minute interview to protect their identity is reasonableit is certainly seen as reasonable in all our research.
	My hon. Friend will know that as we move forward into 2009, we will, further to protect people's identities, have to introduce the fingerprint biometric on the passport to ensure that our passports do not become second-class documents. Having 69 locations at which people can easily enrol their biometrics and have their biographical interview will thus make a big difference to how straightforward people will find the process and will enable us to protect people's identities, which is seen as reasonable by the majority of people in this country.

Modernising Medical Careers

Andrew Lansley: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on modernising medical careers.

Patricia Hewitt: In the written ministerial statements of 7 and 13 March, I set out the Department of Health's plan for an immediate review of the first round of the new national recruitment and selection process for doctors in postgraduate training. As part of the modernising medical careers reforms of postgraduate medical training, new specialty training programmes will be introduced in August 2007.
	To support implementation, a new national recruitment and selection process was introduced earlier this year, facilitated by the online medical training application services. That process sets out national recruitment and selection criteria and documentation and standards, thus replacing the countless local application processes that had previously been in place. The new arrangements were developed with the help of the medical royal colleges, trainee doctors and others. We will continue to work with them to ensure that trainee doctors are properly supported and fairly treated, and that the NHS is able to train and recruit the best doctors for the future.
	Doctors have been applying for their preferred specialty training programme since 22 January and interviews have already begun. A large number of posts will not be filled in the first round and we have stressed to those interviewing in round 1 that they should not appoint unless they are absolutely satisfied with the calibre of candidates. It is clear that there have been concerns about the selection process, and that the process as a whole has created a high degree of insecurity amongst applicants, and, indeed, more widely in the profession. We therefore commissioned an immediate review to establish what had gone well and what needed to be improved to create greater confidence in the process.
	The review is independent. It is being led by Professor Neil Douglas, vice-president of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and president of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. Members of the review group include representatives of the royal colleges, the British Medical Association, the four United Kingdom health Departments and employers. The review group has considered a wide range of evidence and listened carefully to the concerns of the profession and NHS employers. As a result, the review group has agreed, and the Department is implementing, immediate action, but the group will also continue its work throughout March.
	The review group decided that round 1 should continue, with a number of changes to strengthen implementation at every level. All eligible applicants for level 3 and 4 specialty training will be guaranteed an interview for their first or second choice of training post. All applicants at ST1specialty training level 1who have not been shortlisted for any interviews will have their applications reviewed and may be offered an interview in round 1. If not, they will be offered career guidance and support to enter round 2. All applicants for ST2 who have not been shortlisted for interview will be offered a face-to-face review with a trained medical adviser to determine whether they meet the shortlisting criteria. Those who meet the criteria may also be offered an interview in round 1. Those who are not selected for interview will be offered support to enter round 2.
	As a result of those changes, agreed and asked for by the review group, we expect more than 5,000 more doctors to be interviewed in round 1. We will also publish on the MMC and MTAS websites details of competition ratios by specialty and entry level to help applicants to consider their options for the second round, together with further advice and information for candidates. In addition, further significant changes will be made to the application form and the scoring system to improve selection in the second round. The revised approach will be tested and agreed with the royal colleges, junior doctors, postgraduate deans and employers. I am very grateful to Professor Douglas and his colleagues for their continuing work on the review group. We will publish the group's final report once it is completed.

Andrew Lansley: Having dragged the Secretary of State here to make a statement, I am truly sorry that it fails to answer most of the key questions. Before I reach those questions, however, let me ask the right hon. Lady why neither she nor any other Labour Minister took the trouble on Saturday morning to join 12,000 junior doctors who were marching because of their concerns about the arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I went, and we listened. Had the Secretary of State come, she would know why the process has been such a shambles. Those junior doctors would have told her, from their personal experience, how years of training, clinical experience and academic achievement are being thrown away. They would have told her how they want real training, not a dumbed-down system in which they go down from 21,000 hours of training to only 6,000 hours. Why did the Secretary of State not just listen as junior doctors related their experiences?
	Let me ask the Secretary of State these questions. First, how many applications have been made and how many training postsreal training postswill actually be available in England? Secondly, will the review group that she talks about really be independent? Junior doctors need to know that they will have additional representatives on the review group. Indeed, will she appoint to the review group some of the consultants who have decided that they cannot proceed with the interview process as it is, so that they are represented on the review group, too? That would be advisable. Will she promise that the consultants who do the interviewing and shortlisting will be able to see the full application, not just parts of it, and that applicants can send a full CV to those who are doing the shortlisting?
	The Department and the review group seem to be carrying on with an absurd scoring system. How can applicants' clinical experience, academic achievements and references be treated as so unimportant in decisions on appointments to training posts? Who designed this crass process of application by anecdote rather than by achievement? I have an example of the scoring system before me. Has the Secretary of State ever read one? How can she justify relevant academic and research experience being worth a maximum of nine points out of 45? A PhD is worth one point, but composing a 150-word answer to a question about how the applicant has coped with stress is worth up to four points. Why do the Government not want the best training posts to go to the best doctors?
	If it is clear that the system cannot deliver a fair outcome to thousands of highly qualified doctors, who will be left without good training posts, will the Secretary of State abandon the online system and revert to a conventional application and interview process? If it is deemed necessary by the review group, will she sanction extra training posts by reclassifying staff or trust-grade posts? Will she explicitly repeat the assurance that her former Minister, Lord Warner, gave just three months ago, that
	Doctors in training in England should consequently be pretty confident about securing a training post.?
	I have received hundreds of letters and e-mails from distressed and angry junior doctors, and 12,000 of them marched on Saturday. They are the future of our medical profession, and if we want a consultant-led specialist-delivered service in the future, we will need them. As it is, we risk losing them; we will lose some from the profession, and many others to Australia, Canada and elsewhere. Instead of sticking her head in the sand, will the Secretary of State promise doctors that modernising medical careers will be changed? Finally, will she just say sorry to them?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman referred to modernising medical careers as being dumbed-down, but it is nothing of the kind. Modernising medical careers is the outcome of years of work by the medical royal colleges [Interruption.] I realise that Opposition Members are not in the least bit interested in the views of the medical royal colleges, but they play an important part in the training of our future doctors. Modernising medical careers is the outcome of work by the medical royal colleges, postgraduate deans, the British Medical Association, junior doctors and other key partners, including NHS employers across the country.
	If the hon. Gentleman really thinks, as he seems to, that the new system is a disaster compared to the old, perhaps he needs to listen to Dr. Simon Eccles, a consultant at Homerton University hospital, and a former chairman [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that I agreed to a request from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman for the Secretary of State to come to the Chamber and make a statement; she must be listened to.

Patricia Hewitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Simon Eccles, the former chairman of the BMA junior doctors committee [Interruption.] I said that he was the former chairman; the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) should listen. Dr. Eccles said:
	We mustn't forget how bad the old system was. I would be given four hundred and fifty CVs to shortlist for twelve places, so...my hospital would send out some four hundred and twenty rejection letters twice a year. Nobody protested and marched through the streets of Hackney because it only happened in a staggered process.
	He described how consultants would decide who to shortlist by simply dividing the piles into two and tossing a coin. One was the lucky pile, and would make the shortlist; the other one did not. That was scarcely [Interruption.] I am simply quoting a former chairman of the BMA junior doctors committee, referring to some of the reasons why the old system needed replacing.
	Both the BMA and the royal colleges have representatives of their junior doctor members on the review group. It has always been the case under the new system that when applications are submitted, the full CV and portfolio can be, and generally are, attached. There was confusion about the interpretation of guidance from the independent Postgraduate Medical Education and Training BoardPMETBbut I am glad to say that that guidance has been clarified. On the issue of MTAS, let me quote the independent PMETB:
	The substance of the application was determined by UK Postgraduate Deans...A similar system has been operating successfully in the USA for over half a century.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, however, believes that we should go back to the old non-computerised system, under which junior doctors had to fill in a different application, with different information and using a different format, for every post around the country for which they wanted to apply. It was a completely absurd system.
	On the question of numbers, there are just over 32,000 eligible applicants for the available places on training programmesthose figures apply to the UK as a wholeand the number of training posts is about 23,000. May I stress the fact that in many regions, as the postgraduate deans have confirmed, the system is working well, as it is for GP applicants? However, that is not the case everywhere, which is precisely why we set up the independent review group, why we brought in the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the BMA, and why every one of their recommendations has been accepted and is now being implemented. Finally, the hon. Gentleman is keen to ask us to spend even more money than we have already invested in the national health service, but he is not willing to vote for that extra investment. His party's economic policy would mean cuts of billions of pounds in the national health service in one year alone.

Ian Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that both the MMC and the MTAS schemes were quality assessed and assured by experts in the field, which is why they were introduced? There was a process to bring them into line with current thinking, both in Europe and in this country.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. A great deal of development work, quality assurance and so on went into the MTAS process and, more broadly, into modernising medical careers. There have been real problems this year, as I said in my statement, which is why we are working with the review group to sort them out and learn further lessons for round 2, and for next year.

John Pugh: Given the shambles, let me begin on a charitable note. The Government have clearly and openly acknowledged the shortcomings in the recruitment system, yet the BMA stated last year that the system was badly organised, did not draw out people's expertise and would not cope with demand. Was it those shortcomings that the Government had in mind, and do they regret not agreeing with the BMA and failing to act earlier? Do they agree with the Royal College of Physicians that the system was rushed? Do they agree with the royal colleges that CVs should be taken into account, and that previous achievement should not be neglected in application forms? Where else does that happen? Do they agree with Jo Hilborne, chair of the BMA training committee, that junior doctors do receive careers guidance early enough? Do they regret their failure to listen, having scored such an unnecessary own goal?
	Turning to other matters, why did the website crash, and how often did it crash? Was that another IT systems failure or another example of lack of anticipation by the Government? Who is responsible for it, and were any warnings given by IT providers? Does it not bode ill for Connecting for Health, if and when it is ever up and running? What assessment has been made of the likely destiny of unsuccessful applicants, even under the reformed system? Are 8,000 people to be rendered jobless in this country, and how would that affect future training programmes? How many people in total can expect hospital posts? Finally, on an issue of principle on which there is more than one perspective, do the Government agree with the royal colleges that it was a mistake to take statutory training responsibility away from them, and will that, as well as the fate of our young doctors, fall within the remit of Professor Douglas's review?

Patricia Hewitt: On the last point, as I have already indicated, there has been widespread consultation and agreement about the need to introduce modernising medical careers. The problems that have arisen with implementation this year do not in any way undermine support for the principles and the organisation of MMC.
	The hon. Gentleman speaks of introduction being rushed, but work on modernising medical careers and on its implementation has gone on since about 2003. That could not possibly be described as rushed. A great deal of work was done, especially in the second half of last year, to ensure that the systems were as robust as they could be, and that implementation was properly prepared for. What has happened is that, particularly in some parts of the country, and particularly for some specialties, there have been significantly more applications than was predicted. We certainly need, at an appropriate point, to learn the lessons from that for future years.
	My understanding is that it is not true to say that the MTAS IT system crashed, although because of the volume of applications there were undoubtedly delays at various stages in accepting them. Although the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) did not refer to it, I have heard others suggest that some candidates' applications were lost in the processand I understand that that too is untrue.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be 8,000 jobless doctors. There will be nothing of the kind. Of the 32,300 eligible applicants, the vast majorityover 29,000are already working in the NHS, on foundation programmes, in other training places or in other medical posts in the NHS. Those doctors will continue to be needed, so the shroud-waving about unemployed doctors is absurd.
	The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire need to recognise that because of our Government's investment in the NHS, and because we are training more doctors [Interruption.] The Opposition do not like to hear it, but because we are training more doctors than ever before, competition for consultant training places is greater than ever before. We need to ensure that those candidates, our future doctors, are given all the support they need as they go through an increasingly competitive and inevitably stressful process, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State allow me to emphasise how inadequate the previous system was? Did not she receive, as I did, complaints from women doctors and black doctors that they did not get a fair look-in for training opportunities, and that they felt that the old system was run as an old boy network? And can she give an undertaking to one junior doctor who e-mailed me: will a majority of the review panel be composed of people who did not set up the original scheme?

Patricia Hewitt: My right hon. Friend makes extremely important points about the old system. There is no doubt that the old system depended a great deal more on who candidates knew, not what they knew. The result was a great deal of discrimination within the system, which could never be properly addressed or corrected because it was invisible. That is one of the many reasons why modernising medical careers is such an improvement on the old system. It is fair, it is transparent and it sets the same criteria, the same interviewing processes and so on, right across the country. That never happened in the completely devolved and shambolic system that was used previously. On the review group, it is essential that we have not only the representatives of the junior doctors, but the representatives of the medical royal colleges, as they are responsible both for the training and for the development of the specialist curricula for which the doctors are competing.

Malcolm Moss: Does the Minister not realise that the new scheme is likely to lead to serious managerial problems in many of our hospitals, which will lead to a diminution of care and an extended waiting list?

Patricia Hewitt: No, I do not accept that. Hospitals will benefit from a much better, much more thorough training system that will get rid of the old systemin which, as a former chairman of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges described it, senior house officers were a kind of lost tribe filling in time between properly structured and assessed training. There is no doubt at all that the improvements in training that will come with modernising medical careers will be good for doctors and good for patients.

Diane Abbott: The House accepts that the old system was unsatisfactory and that a lot of work has gone into the new system, but it has left junior doctors genuinely in uproar. Some of them contacted me this morning to ask me to put this to the Secretary of State: given that the implementation of the new system appears to be fatally flawed, is it right to continue to allocate jobs before the review gives its final report at the end of the month?

Patricia Hewitt: Whether round 1 should be delayed or scrapped was one of the first issues that the review group considered at its first meeting, and it has come back to it since. The review group has been clear that round 1 should continue, because otherwise the interviews of thousands of junior doctors would be completely disrupted and hospitals could well find themselves in August without the junior doctors they need in place to continue operating. For that reason, the review group recommended, and we accepted, that round 1 should continue but with the immediate changes that it recommended, and we have made, to ensure that the system works properly, that it is fair to junior doctors, and that it enables the NHS to get the best doctors for all the places that it is seeking to fill.

Peter Bottomley: Can the Secretary of State explain how going ahead with the first part of the stage 1 interviews and appointments can be fair if the other doctors who are now excluded but will be brought in later are being considered on a different basis? Will she take up the suggestion that she use the MTAS system to carry out a ballot of all the doctors in training to ask them what they think would be fair, and whether it would be better to stop and start again on an equal basis, or to continue on this unequal basis? Will she please get her people to talk to the directors of medical education and ask them to nominate the people who they know should have been interviewed but have not, just to show what has so clearly gone off course?

Patricia Hewitt: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman's suggestions have already been considered by the review group, which has received evidence and listened to representations from a very wide range of people. For instance, 84 per cent. of the most junior of the junior doctorsthe ST2 junior doctors who have completed the two-year foundation programmehave already been given a round 1 interview. The remainder are having their applications reassessed, and many will, as a result, also be given a round 1 interview. However, the review group has been very clearand I support it in thisthat the way to proceed is to make immediate changes so that round 1 operates better and more fairly, as it is already doing in other specialisms and in some parts of the country, and then, if necessary, to make further changes for round 2 so that lessons from round 1 are learned. As I stressed earlier, we have made it clear to those making the appointments that they should not appoint from round 1 unless they are absolutely satisfied with the calibre of candidatesalthough several of the postgraduate teams who are already involved in those round 1 interviews say that they are delighted with the calibre of candidates, and where they are considering making appointments, they are finding it even easier to do so than in the past.

Diana Johnson: I am concerned about the impact that the bad publicity about this scheme could have on the new medical schools, particularly the Hull York medical school. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend offer me?

Patricia Hewitt: There was enormous public and student welcome for the creation of the new medical schools and the additional medical places that we have been able to create as a result of the investment that we have made. It is important that we restore confidence, where that has been damaged, in the whole process of recruitment for consultant training, and that is exactly what we are doing with the help of the review group. When we publish its final report, we will be able to see what additional changes are needed to ensure that next year's process works without the difficulties that we have encountered in this first year.

Martin Horwood: We are still waiting for two things: first, an apology from the Secretary of State and, secondly, an unambiguous answer to the question that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) asked about quality assurance, which is one of the safeguards available to anyone who introduces new systems, however much they are needed. Will she give an unambiguous answer? Have the final MMC and MTAS systems been subject to formal quality assuranceyes or no?

Patricia Hewitt: My understanding is yes.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State put herself in the position of one of those extremely anxious junior doctors? Where does she think that she would be today if the Prime Minister had not been able to take into account her previous achievements before he appointed her?

Patricia Hewitt: It is precisely because I put myself in the position of a junior doctor, who had worked incredibly hard and found himself or herself without the interview for which they had longed or for the specialty to which they were committed, that I was so determined to sort out the matter. That is why the minute that the scale of the problem became clear, we sat down with the academy, colleagues from the medical royal colleges and the BMA and asked them to lead an independent review process. We are now making the changes that will ensure that junior doctors can have genuine confidence in the process, which is a great deal better than the old system of medical training, that they will be treated fairly and, above all, that the NHS can appoint the best people for the large number of jobs that are now available.

Nicholas Winterton: Mr. Goodare of Poynton in my constituency is currently a senior house officer in anaesthetics. He and his mother have contacted me, and both were in London on Saturday for the march and demonstration. What assurance can the Secretary of State give my constituent, who is a highly trained and motivated young man, that he will have a job next year? She has admitted that there has been a problem. The simple thing for her to do is apologise and give an assurance that people who are so worried and can help the health service have a job.

Patricia Hewitt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, more doctors and other professionals are employed in the NHS now than ever before. However, the NHS has never been able to guarantee employment, especially not in the specialty or place of an individual's choice to every individual who comes through medical training. We have increased the number of medical trainees to such an extent that competition is even greater. Given the hon. Gentleman's description of his constituent, I am sure that he will have not only a fair hearing in the training and assessment system that is being improved, but every chance of success.

Stewart Jackson: I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not give my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) a more comprehensive reply. Like me, he will have received at the weekend an e-mail from a senior clinician at Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. It made the point that, as of July, only two out of 22 anaesthetistssenior house officerswill be available. That will have a massive impact on clinical care, especially on epidurals for pregnant women and other issues related to pregnancy. When will the Secretary of State apologise for that likely state of affairs, admit that the Department got it wrong and move on?

Patricia Hewitt: It is a matter for each hospital to ensure that it employs the right number of people with the right specialist skills to offer a safe service to pregnant women or any other patient. I am sure that the hospital to which the hon. Gentleman refers and every other hospital will continue to do that.

Andrew MacKay: Earlier, the Secretary of State failedinadvertently, I am sureto answer a question. May I therefore be helpful and ask it again? How can we have any faith in a system that awards one point for a PhD yet four points for dealing with stress?

Patricia Hewitt: As I said when I cited the independent Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board, the scoring system and the whole process for applications was developed by the postgraduate deans, working with the Department and other partners. It is not up to Ministers to determine the number of points that should be awarded for different aspects of what is inevitably a complex system. The review group will be able to consider that as it examines other aspects of the system. If it wants to recommend changes, we will, of course, take that seriously.

Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State began her review when the scale of the problem became known to her, but the scale of the problem was pretty clear on 13 October to the junior doctors committee representative from the BMA who, in my presence, made quite clear to junior doctors at East Surrey hospital the scale of the disaster that was about to happen and made it clear that the BMA's junior doctors' representatives were begging the Department of Health to postpone this process. The parliamentary questions that I have tabled on this matter have resulted in answers of the most stunning complacency. I have now been told of a further issue that will arise out of this virtual nationalisation of junior doctors beginning their new jobs. Apparently, between 1 and 3 August, almost every junior doctor and registrar will be involved in induction training in hospitals up and down the country, leaving only consultants available to provide doctor cover. Is the Secretary of State aware of this potential problem, and is she going to do anything to avert it before it happens?

Patricia Hewitt: I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the summer of last yearand, if I remember correctly, in 2005 as wellwe were told that we were about to have thousands of unemployed doctors all over the country. Of course, that was not the case, any more than it will be this year. We are looking at what will happen in August, but the immediate priority is to ensure that we sort out the changes that need to be made for round 1 and round 2 to ensure that this first yearwhich was bound to be a transitional yearof appointments to the new consultant training system continues in a way that will be fair to everyone and that restores the confidence of junior doctors.

Tony Baldry: Horton general hospital in Banbury is possibly going to lose 24/7 paediatric cover and, as a consequence, consultant-led obstetrics because, we are told, there are insufficient junior paediatricians to go round. What this saga seems to demonstrate is that there are more qualified junior doctors than there are posts. Will the Secretary of State give the people of my constituency an assurance that any paediatricians who want training posts at the end of this exercise can go to Horton general hospital, where, for the past 75 years or so, we have had consultant-led obstetrics and, ever since Barbara Castle initiated a public inquiry, consultant-led 24/7 paediatric cover?

Patricia Hewitt: It is entirely a matter for the hospital and for the NHS in each region to decide how many training places should be made available and in what specialties. I would never seek to dictate that from the Department of Health. How and where services are most safely and appropriately provided is also a matter on which decisions need to be made locally by the local NHS, in full consultation with the public.

Mark Harper: I, too, was contacted today by a junior house doctor, who specifically wanted me to ask the Secretary of State whether she was aware that, under the new system, a surgeon will have only about 25 per cent. of the number of training hours that they currently receive. Would the Secretary of State be happy to be operated on by such a surgeon?

Patricia Hewitt: On that, and on other relevant matters, it is more relevant to listen to the views of the Royal College of Surgeons, which has been closely involved throughout the development of the modernising medical careers programme. The programme is designed to replace a rather disorganised old system with one that focuses clearly on the competences and the level of ability that doctors need as they progress through their specialty training towards becoming a consultant.

Andrew Tyrie: It is not only junior doctors who are missing outfirst-class hospitals such as St. Richard's cannot get the best doctors to train. My constituents will therefore not get the treatment they would otherwise be able to obtain. This is an absolute shambles. Cannot the Secretary of State see the scale of it? Will she now, as numerous people have asked, just say sorry?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to the review group. We published a further statement from it last Friday, which I have just repeated in my statement. The changes that we have already agreed for round 1 mean that junior doctors who did not get an interview, or did not get an interview for their first or second choice of specialty, will now have their applications reviewed, in some cases through a face-to-face interview. Where appropriatedepending, of course, on whether they meet the selection criteriathey will then be added to the interview process. In addition to the very fine young junior doctors who have already been given interviews in round 1, including 84 per cent. of the second-year foundation training programme graduates, more doctorswe estimate that there will be more than 5,000will be given round 1 training interviews. That will not only ensure fairness to them, but will enable the NHS to choose from the best candidates for all jobs.

Greg Clark: Apart from the misery that is being caused to thousands of junior doctors and their families, this is another NHS information technology project failure. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much the MTAS system has cost to date, and will she consider inviting the National Audit Office to inform her and the House whether it has been value for money?

Patricia Hewitt: I do not know how much the MTAS system has cost, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about it, and I will certainly consider his suggestion about the NAO.

Tobias Ellwood: I am astonished to hear the Secretary of State continuing to defend the system when she should be apologising for it. I met about 20 junior doctors from Bournemouth hospital at the weekend. They said that the online system was a joke, that proper training was being jeopardised, and that come 1 August thousands of able doctors would be made redundant. Is the Secretary of State willing to meet those doctors so that she can hear their views directly, and does she agree that of all the cock-ups that the Government have caused in the NHS, this has to take the biscuit?

Patricia Hewitt: I am glad to say that I have the opportunity to meet junior doctors and other NHS staff all the time, and will continue to do so.
	As soon as it became clear that the new system was not working properly, I sat down with the royal colleges and the BMA and established an independent review group. We are acting on its recommendations, and I think that that is the right way in which to proceed.

John Leech: Will the Secretary of State give us any idea of how many doctors will be out of a job after August, and has she made any assessment of the work load that will be placed on those who will be left in the system?

Patricia Hewitt: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been following the discussion. He assumes that thousands of doctors will be out of work, but the applicantsmore than 29,000who are currently working in the NHS will continue to be needed in the service, whether they have moved on to run-through training programmes or are working in staff and other NHS jobs. Those jobs will continue to be needed, because those doctors are at the heart of the NHS.

Shailesh Vara: One question that has been asked repeatedly this afternoon remains unanswered. I will repeat it, for the sake of good order, and I hope that the Secretary of State will answer it. Will she say sorry?

Patricia Hewitt: As I have said, the system was not working as well as it should have been, and as soon as that became clearand because of the distress being caused to so many junior doctorswe established an independent review group. We have already made changes in the system, which have been communicated to the junior doctors both directly and through the websites. Further changes are now being made, and will continue to be made.
	I only hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Members, while complainingperfectly reasonablyabout problems, will acknowledge that we are sorting those problems out. I also hope that they will, just occasionally, give credit for the real progress that has been made.

Orders of the Day

Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill  [Lords]

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the  Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2006-07, Legislative Scrutiny: First Progress Report, HC 263, and the letter from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the Chairman of the Committee, dated 12th March 2007.]
	 Order for Second Reading read.

Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I have been involved in consumer affairs in the House for more than 20 years, and I feel passionate about the issues. I am proud that under the present Government the country is seeing the biggest overhaul of consumer protection for the past 20 years. The Bill is part of that story. We want to empower consumersto give them a strong voice and access to redress when things go wrong. We also want to ensure that rogue businesses have nowhere to hide. The Bill embodies the Government's commitment to a fair deal for consumers, and that is why I am delighted to present the Bill to the House today.
	The Government have an impressive track record in competition and consumer policy, but we are not complacent. Our goal is to have the best competition and consumer regime in the world by 2008.
	Sticking up for consumers does not mean bashing legitimate business. Indeed, we have a responsibility to businesses to get rid of the rogues. Honest, well run businesses should not be undercut by competitors who rip off consumers. Often, the reputations of many responsible firms are tarnished by the actions of the irresponsible few.
	Government have a key role to play. Consumers need to have, first, the right information to spot a good deal; secondly, the knowledge to tell when they are being ripped off; and thirdly, we need to give enforcers the power to catch the rip-off merchants. Those are the principles driving the Bill.
	Before I speak about the Bill in detail, I want to explain how it fits with other changes that the Government are making to empower consumers. The Consumer Credit Act 2006, which received Royal Assent last March, greatly improves consumer rights and redress in relation to borrowing money. The Act also introduces major changes to the licensing of consumer credit businesses, and new powers to drive dishonest traders out of the market.
	The unfair commercial practices directive is another powerful tool. It is designed to tackle the rogue traders and unfair business practices that target the most vulnerable people in society and damage the reputation of honest firms by association. Once implemented, that directive will ban 31 types of unfair commercial practices outright, including high-pressure or unreasonably persistent selling methods. It will tackle unfair sales ploys such as prize draw scams, including phone-in prize draw scams; bogus closing down sales; sellers who refuse to leave a customer's home until a contract is signed; and traders who prey on elderly people's fears about personal security to sell them burglar alarms. The directive also introduces a catch-all duty not to trade unfairly. Currently, a practice would be examined against prescriptive legislation, which unfair traders can try to avoid. The general duty will be able to catch all unfair practices that might affect consumers.

Anne Begg: I wonder whether the catch-all provision would cover the practice that a number of disabled people experience where there is an advert for an electronic buggy or bed with a phone number. When they phone up asking for a brochure, one arrives that has no prices. If they ask what the price is, they are not told. Instead, a salesman calls and what happens thereafter is pressured sales. Will that kind of sales technique be outlawed under those provisions?

Ian McCartney: I can confirm that that is the case. As I get into my speech, hon. Members will see that the Bill covers issues relating to solicited or unsolicited sales. That is important. I think that there is all-party support in that respect.
	Together with this Bill, those measures form a comprehensive package that will empower consumers more than ever before. As I said, I have been involved in consumer affairs for over 20 years. The Bill is an effective refurbishment of measures introduced over that period.
	The Bill represents an important step forward in consumer protection. It contains a range of important provisions that will create a new, stronger, more coherent consumer advocacy body to represent consumers across all markets; introduce availability of redress for consumers in the energy, postal services and estate agency sectors; and improve regulation of estate agents and doorstep selling.
	The Bill has already benefited from full and thorough debate in another place. Some valuable changes have been made to it as a result. I shall outline some of those changes as I describe in more detail the content of the Bill itself.

Peter Luff: Will the Minister clarify one issue of detail on the name of the new consumer advocacy body that is created by the Bill? The Bill describes it throughout as the National Consumer Council. The phrase consumer voice has been used extensively by Ministers. Will he clarify whether that phrase is still in current usage?

Ian McCartney: It will be the National Consumer Council. As I get into my speech, the hon. Gentleman will see what the process is. If he wants to intervene on me again, he may by all means do so.
	I apologise. I just lost the plot there [Interruption.] I thought that that would get a chuckle. I lost my place in my speech.
	As well as creating a new, stronger and more coherent advocacy body, we will introduce the availability of redress schemes and improve the regulation of estate agents and doorstep selling. The Bill has already benefited from having been debated in another place, and further issues might arise in Committee. The Bill was dealt with in another place in a non-controversial and non-partisan way, and I will give serious consideration to suggestions offered in that spirit for improving the Billbut, obviously, I will not give serious consideration to matters raised simply for partisan reasons.
	The consumer voice provisions form the largest part of the Bill. They will bring together the existing National Consumer Council, Energywatch and Postwatch to form a strong and powerful consumer advocate: the new National Consumer Council. The Bill also allows for the Consumer Council for Water to be brought inside the new National Consumer Council tent in the future, after public consultation.
	Some critics of those proposals have raised concerns about loss of expertise and loss of independence. Some have even suggested that the Government are creating this new body in order to silence criticism of Government action, on post offices in particular. Let me say now that our objective in bringing these bodies together is to create not a mouse too meek to challenge us, but a lion who will, I hope, roar on behalf of consumers. We do not want to weaken consumer representation, but to strengthen it. We do not want to lose valued expertise, but to build on it and make sure that all sectors benefit from it. A strong rope is made from intertwining different strands together. That is why we will create the new National Consumer Council.
	Markets for essential services such as energy, post and water have been liberalised one by one over a period of time. As a result, we now have several sectoral consumer bodies, as well as the National Consumer Council. The National Consumer Council, Energywatch and Postwatch have provided a valuable service to consumers until now, but there are key issues to be addressed. Consumer representation is fragmented. Consumers are confused about where to go for help. Lessons are not being shared between sectors. Resources and information can be shared more effectively.
	It is now time for change. The new National Consumer Council will be a strong and independent advocate for the consumer. It will speak with expertise and authority in discussions with companies, with Government and in Europe. It will be able to look across sectors, and to give advice on the basis of expert and informed analysis, and it will draw on all its skills and expertise to tackle the biggest problems in the areas of most concern.

Robert Smith: The Minister talks about the new body being an advocate for consumers. Does he mean that it will be so in a general sense by advocating the needs of consumers, or does he envisage it taking up specific issues? I know that changes have been made in the Lords in respect of some energy consumer issues, but there is still concern that vulnerable people might not get their cases dealt with quickly unless someone acts as their advocate.

Ian McCartney: I assure the hon. Gentleman that its role will be both general and particular, and that it will have a role specifically to tackle issues to do with vulnerable consumers, in terms of dealing with their initial problems and complaints and in assisting them through the processall the way through, if necessaryof getting redress for their personal circumstances. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the proposed legislation will do that.
	Consumers will know when to turn for help and who they can turn to for help. Consumer Direct will act as a first port of call, dealing with simple complaints and inquiries, or referring consumers on to redress schemes if the company in question fails to resolve the problem. The hon. Gentleman's point is well made in that regard. Even at the stage of the first port of call with the company, the most vulnerable consumers will be assisted. When they make contact with Consumer Direct, they will not simply be told, Well, go away and see what you can do, and then come back to us if the situation has not been resolved. We will provide an end-to-end service.
	Let me be clear: we have big ambitions for the new National Consumer Council that I am confident this House will share. Our challenge is to take the best of the current organisationstheir knowledge, their independence, their ability to act quicklyand to build that into something even better: a champion fighter that is able to protect consumers and that is admired for its expertise, trusted for its advice and feared by those who would rip off consumers.
	I should at this stage report that we had an informative and thorough debate in another place. As a result of listening to concerns raised, the Government laid a number of amendments. In particular, there were concerns about the position of the Scottish and Welsh Consumer Councils. It has always been our intention that those bodies should undertake the same key functions as the new National Consumer Council. We laid a number of amendments in another place to clarify the role of the Scottish and Welsh Consumer Councils, and to ensure that they are provided with the power to exercise the same key functions within their relevant territories, except for a very few instances where it is necessary for the new National Consumer Council to maintain a co-ordinating role.
	The Bill also extends the availability of redress for consumers in the energy and postal sectors. Energywatch and Postwatch currently labour under a significant burden of complaints. However, they can seek to resolve these complaints only through persuasion. They have no powers to enforce resolution and cannot provide for redress or compensation.

James Duddridge: The Minister says that he has great hopes for the National Consumer Council. Will it be structured in such a way that other industries can be incorporated at a later stage and is that his intention?

Ian McCartney: That is a fair question. I have already indicated in consultation that the next sector that I would like to see join is water. We do intend to build on this start over time, but if changes are to be made, they will have to be made by consultation. That is critical.
	Part 2 of the Bill will, for the first time, give consumers guaranteed access to redress schemes that have the teeth to enforce their awards. The Bill will enable Ministers to require suppliers or service providers in the energy and postal services sectors to belong to redress schemes. That will give consumers not only confidence that their complaint will be resolved but access to compensation and redress where that is warranted.
	The redress provisions in the Bill have been strengthened by changes resulting from discussion in the other place. Gas transporters and electricity distributors have been brought within the scope of the redress schemes. We have also made it absolutely clear that the new national consumer council can investigate complaints relating to threatened disconnection of gas or electricity supplies as well as actual disconnection. That also relates to the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) about vulnerable consumers. Furthermore, the new national consumer council can investigate complaints from consumers who use prepayment meters, where disconnection arises as a result of a failure in the prepayment system. Those changes provide yet further protection for consumers, especially the most vulnerable consumers in our society.

Peter Luff: As I understand it, the energy sector already has a redress scheme, and the energy supply ombudsman already exists. However, there is no such ombudsman for the postal sector, which is a major concern for consumer bodies and businesses. When will there be a postal services ombudsman?

Ian McCartney: I will come back to that point, but the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that for the first time ever each of the sectors in the Bill will have comprehensive redress schemes, which will be consistent with each other. That is the whole purpose of the Bill, as I was trying to get across, and I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
	Estate agents play a crucial role in the home buying and selling process. For most consumers, buying a home is the most critical and the most expensive purchase that they ever make. I speak from personal experience when I say that it can be shattering to the nerves on occasion. It is vital that the estate agency market works well and that consumers are protected against unfair practices. Consumers need to be confident that estate agents will deal honestly with them; and many estate agents are rightly angry that their reputation is tarnished by a small and unscrupulous minority.
	The Office of Fair Trading recognised those issues in its study of the estate agency market published in March 2004. The OFT found that the market was generally competitive. However, it also found that a significant number of consumers were not happy with the service that they received. Some consumers simply received poor service with estate agents turning up late for appointments, for example, or not returning keys on time. But other complaints were more serious, such as failure to pass on offers to sellers or failure to declare a personal interest in a property. The OFT therefore made a number of recommendations to put that right.
	The Government accepted the OFT's recommendations in July 2004. In fact, in the area of redress, the Government went even further than the OFT and promised to make membership of a redress scheme mandatory for all UK estate agents. We fulfilled that promise in part by amending the Housing Act 2004. As a result, complaints against estate agents relating to home information packs in England and Wales will now be addressed through redress schemes.
	The order requiring estate agents to belong to a redress scheme for the purposes of HIPs was laid on 1 March, and estate agents have until 1 June to sign up to an approved scheme. But this Bill goes further. It will fulfil our promise that a private individual with a complaint against an estate agent should have access to redress. Estate agents could face costly pay-outs and possible loss of livelihood if they do not abide by the law and generally accepted voluntary codes of conduct in the industry. I am confident that we will see higher standards as a result. Our intention is that this should come into force in April 2008.
	At the same time as providing redress for consumers the Bill also tightens the current negative licensing regime. First, the Bill will improve the audit trail for transactions by requiring estate agents to make and keep records, including records of offer letters, for six years. Secondly, it will give the OFT and local authority trading standards officers powers to go into premises and inspect records in a wide range of circumstances. That will enable them to investigate not just criminal offences but all breaches of the law and of undertakings given to enforcers. Finally, the Bill will expand the circumstances in which the OFT can consider the fitness of an estate agent to practise, and if necessary it can take regulatory action against them.
	At present the OFT can ban an estate agent only when they have been convicted of specified criminal offences. The Bill will allow the OFT to ban an estate agent when there is sufficient evidence that an offence has been committed, even if there is no conviction. That will ensure that the OFT can consider the fitness of estate agents, for example, where another regulator has taken enforcement action against them but they have not been taken to court. Furthermore, the OFT will also be able to ban an estate agent when an enforcement order or a statutory undertaking under the Enterprise Act 2002 has been breached.
	Those changes are needed to bring the Estate Agents Act 1979 into line with modern enforcement practice. The Government wholeheartedly support the efforts of the National Association of Estate Agents and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to raise standards through training. Any good estate agent should have knowledge of the legislation governing estate agents, just as any professional should be aware of the legal obligations relevant to their industry. However, the OFT found that in the majority of cases where it took action against an estate agent the root cause was lack of integrity or honestynot lack of knowledge of the law.
	What the Bill does is more sophisticated than positive licensing: the estate agents provisions will mean that a consumer dealing with an estate agent anywhere in the UK knows that there is somewhere they can go to seek redress. Any estate agent who does not belong to a redress scheme will now face being fined and banned as a result. More evidence and audit trails will make it easier for enforcers to deal with rogue agents and remove them from the marketplace. At the same time, other measures strengthen the current regime and give enforcers the powers they need to take action against rogue agents. Ultimately, that approach will serve consumers better.
	Finally on this issue, I shall comment on the concerns raised about the fact that letting agents and others are not included in the Bill. Lettings and new build are important sectors of the property market, and the Government are committed to ensuring that consumers are not disadvantaged in those areas. However, the Bill implements the recommendations made in the OFT report on the estate agency market. The report did not look at lettings agents, property developers or any other property professionals, so we do not yet have a clear evidence base for extending the redress provisions to those sectors.
	Secondly, the Bill amends the Estate Agents Act 1979, which has a specific definition of estate agency work. Changing the definition would require a lengthy and careful examination of the consequences for the whole Act. However, the Government are committed to looking at the whole property market and, on the basis of proper research and evidence, to consider what more needs to be done. At my prompting, as Minister with responsibilities for consumers, the Government will conduct a review of the property sector, including looking at redress for lettings and new build. Ministers will consider carefully the conclusions of that work and decide the next steps that should be taken. I hope that is seen as a positive response to the comments made in another place.
	Part 4 contains provisions relating to doorstep selling that will give consumers the right to change their mind, whether they asked for the sales visit or not. This part of the Bill has a long history, going back to 2002 when Citizens Advice submitted its report, Door to Door, to the OFT as a super-complaint. The OFT subsequently made a number of recommendations for improving consumer protection in that area. As part of the Government's response to the OFT report, published last September, we decided to introduce primary legislation to enable us to make regulations, so that consumers who ask salespeople into their home will also have cooling-off rights for doorstep sales; at present, they apply only when a salesperson turns up uninvited.
	Breaking down the distinction between solicited and unsolicited visits will make the law simpler and clearer for the consumer, business and enforcement agencies alike. Businesses will be able to work with one contract for both solicited and unsolicited visits, reducing ongoing costs in the production of contracts and training of sales staff. The simpler rules will ensure that businesses will not generally need to spend time establishing whether their visit is solicited or unsolicited. The provisions are particularly important for vulnerable consumers whohaving invited a salesperson into their homecan feel pressured into buying something they do not want or need. Together with the unfair commercial practices directive, the measure sends a clear message that businesses that lack integrity and feed on fear will not be tolerated.
	The Government are committed to a robust and effective consumer and competition regimeone that is fair to consumers as well as to business. First, the Bill creates a new National Consumer Councila powerful advocate for consumers. Secondly, it gives consumers the rights to redress that they deserve. Thirdly, it demonstrates our commitment to getting rid of rogue estate agents. Fourthly, for the first time, it tackles effectively rogue doorstep sales persons. I look forward to hearing the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members to the debate on this important Bill. I commend it to the House.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Minister for talking us through the main points of the Bill, which Conservative Members broadly welcome. As he said, it is important for consumers, it merges key consumer bodies and it makes a serious attempt to give consumers greater rights when buying or selling their house.
	I pay tribute at the outset to the work done in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Wilcox and others whose efforts have already significantly improved the Bill. We firmly believe in consumer choice and in the accessibility of information to enable people to exercise that choice. That is best achieved through a spirit of shared responsibility with the Government, businesses and consumers all working together. That, of course, is not always the reality and when businesses fall short of their responsibilities, it is important that consumers have the means available to obtain timely and efficient redress. It is on the basis of those principles that we approach the Bill today.
	We support much of what the Bill does, but have several specific concerns, some of which the Minister referred to earlier. One of its principal features is the amalgamation of Energywatch, Postwatch and, in time, the Consumer Council for Water within a new statutory national consumer council. The Government argue that it is designed to strengthen and streamline consumer representation. However, the Government's record has given rise to concern that the implementation of those changes may mean that consumers are, in fact, disadvantaged by these proposals.
	There is, for example, increasing disquiet about how and when the Consumer Council for Water will be merged into the new regime. The next water industry price review, which will fix limits for water companies' charging systems, is due to be completed in 2009. The period leading up to that date will therefore be a busy one for the Consumer Council for Water, yet it is just the period in which the Government want to begin abolishing it.

Ian McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise if I misrepresent what he has said. I recognise the point that he makes, as I have already met representatives of that body and suggested that I would be happy to bring forward the review if it would help in dealing with the other matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am now waiting for a response.

Alan Duncan: That is not in the Bill at the moment, but I welcome and appreciate the Minister's constructive response. If it is amended in Committee along the lines that he described, that would make for good progress and we would be happy to follow that line with him.

Ian McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for having this helpful conversation. I do not need to amend the Bill in respect of consultation, because it does not have to be done through primary legislation.

Alan Duncan: The last couple of minutes seem to have been more effective than the entire proceedings of Public Bill Committees, so we are making progress. I am grateful to the Minister. I do not know whether I am going to achieve quite as much with my next point, but I am going to try.
	The timing of the abolition of Postwatch is also unfortunate, to say the least. At just the time that the Government are making deep cuts in the post office network, they are planning to mire the postal consumer watchdog in a transition process, too. Surely there is a danger of giving less focus to consumers at just the time that they most need the representation that Postwatch can offer.

Robert Key: I have tried diligently to make use of Postwatch, whose motives are tremendous, but for several years it has been completely overwhelmed and unable to respond within a reasonable time scale. Actually, the best watchdogs are consumers themselves: the people in receipt of the lettersor not, as the case may be.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and hope that the Minister will have heard what he said. It appears that he has and wishes to say something more.

Ian McCartney: I have to respond to my next-door neighbour in London. Extensive work has been done in co-ordinating with the body concerned. It is engaged at the very highest levelat every levelon a fortnightly basis with the planning and implementation process. Perhaps it should spend more time on that rather than sending out reports to MPs about fears that are absolutely groundless.

Alan Duncan: I think many may disagree with what the Minister says about groundless fears. There are serious concerns about the entire future of the Post Office. Postwatch and successor bodies will be responsible for elements of consumer representation and we want to make sure that the mechanisms for that are of the highest possible quality.

Jim Cunningham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me and the Minister that Postwatch was not effective and that we should have a stronger body to regulate the post.

Alan Duncan: Let me just ask the House whether bigger means stronger. Conservative Members are concerned about the skills and experience that have been built up in Postwatch and Energywatch. Those bodies know the detailed issues in their sectors and have experienced people working for them. Perhaps the Minister will now have to concentrate on how he will ensure that those valuable skills are transferred intact to the new body. For example, will the new body retain separate sectoral specialists? Can he assure the House that it will carry at least the same weight and reputation as the existing sectoral bodies that have worked hard to get name recognition?

Peter Luff: We are in the fortunate position that the Minister replying to the debate is responsible for post offices, so I would like to reinforce my hon. Friend's point. Postwatch has learned from the problems of the urban reinvention programme and has become a sufficiently more effective body. It has a big contribution to make to the current round of post office closures planned by the Government, so it is a great shame that it will be abolished at this precise moment.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. To many, there is a suspicion, on which they need reassurance, that the decision to create the new body was motivated not by a desire to improve consumer representation but simply as a drive to cut costs. My hon. Friend asked the Minister earlier about the name of the new body. I did not quite understand the answer; it came out as a bit of a jumble and appeared to us all as a bit of a Prescottism. I am confused, so perhaps the Minister can clarify what its name will be.

Ian McCartney: I am not going to apologise for my accent. From my perspective, the answer was clearit will be the new national consumer council and I said that more than once in my speech and in response to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff).

Alan Duncan: That does clarify the matter, so I am grateful to the Minister. However, in the course of his earlier answer, he used, perhaps by accident, the word voice. However, we now know what the answer is, and that is fine.
	Our second area of specific concern is the lack of provision relating to internal complaint handling procedures. We differ from the Government over how best to ensure that complaints are dealt with quickly and effectively. Redress schemes are at the heart of the Bill, yet they are the last resort of the unhappy consumer. The first port of call is, and should be, the company from which the goods and services were purchased. Effective complaints procedures at this stage would have the effect of ensuring that more complaints were resolved at their outset. It would reduce the burden on the new NCC and make for better satisfied consumers too. Good internal complaints procedures are the best way to protect and empower consumers, and yet there is precious little about that in the Bill.
	Existing redress schemes vary greatly from granting immediate access to insisting on a three-month wait before the consumer can invoke the services of the ombudsman. Three months is a long time to wait for a consumer and that creates an opportunity for supplier companies to avoid resolving complaints quickly, knowing that the process for the consumer may simply turn out to be too long and drawn out for them to bother pursuing things further. Conservative Members believe that companies should have in place effective internal complaints procedures to deal with consumers quickly and efficiently. The best way to make that happen is to insist that internal complaints procedures that reflect best practice are a fundamental requirement for the membership of any approved redress scheme for which the Bill provides.
	This is not re-inventing the wheela similar model already successfully works in the financial services sector. The Financial Services Authority requires that membership of the Financial Ombudsmen Service is dependent on an organisation having an appropriate and effective internal complaint-handling function. We hope that a similar system can be replicated. I am glad to see the Minister nodding. That is good news, if that is what is going to happen.
	Initially, the Government made only a small concession towards this approach when the issue was raised in the other place. The phrase that they introduced into clause 49 was a tad vague. They required regulators only to
	have regard to...such principles as...the...generally accepted principles of best practice.
	Of course, that is welcome, but, to my mind, it does not really go far enough. Effective internal complaint handling is central to the aims of the Bill. It should be a prerequisite of redress scheme membership and that should be included in the Bill. Redress schemes are being provided to catch the worst failings of their member companies, but it must be preferable for the redress schemes to be proactive about preventing failures in the first place.
	Our third area of disquiet concerns the independence of the new national consumer council. The Government have said that they want the new NCC to be independent and for the relationship between the NCC and the Government to be transparent and accountable. That is a proper aim, but I fear that the text of the Bill reveals a rather different approach. Clauses 17 to 19 concern reports and advice that the NCC may produce on consumer matters. In each of the circumstances described in the Bill, there is discretion as to whether the reports are made publicly available. When the NCC itself determines that the report shall be produced, it has the discretion to publish. However, when the Government ask the NCC to report on specific matters, it is the Secretary of State who chooses whether the public ever get to see what the NCC has to say. This is a serious matter of public accountability and of transparency for the consumer. The NCC will receive public funding, but the reports that it provides to the Government are not necessarilyso it seemsto be made available to the taxpayers who fund them.
	We believe that all reports produced by the NCC should automatically be made available to the public. That need not raise a cost issue, as has been claimed, because the documents could simply be made available on the NCC's website. A Minister in another place, arguing against that suggestion, claimed that not all such reports would be of interest to consumers. However, I fail to see how reports from a public body set up to look after consumers' interests would not be of interest and relevant to consumers. Work that one out, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot and I do not know who can.
	It seems that the Government wish to use the NCC for their own purposes, or at least that could be the perception. The fact that the NCC will not have the right to publish its own reports goes to the heart of the question whether the relationship between the Government and the NCC is sufficiently transparent. On this side of the House, we believe that it is essential that all such reports are published to ensure that the NCC is genuinely independent. For years, the NCC has been funded by the Government but has been unhindered in choosing for itself the focus of the work it undertakes and then reporting on that as it wished. I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that this is a better way to continue in the interests of empowered consumers.
	Our fourth, and perhaps most serious, area of concern relates to estate agents. For the vast majority of people, buying a house is the single largest financial commitment they ever make. It is therefore right that the Government have sought to tackle the problem of rogue estate agents. We welcome the steps taken in the Bill to ensure that estate agents are members of an approved redress scheme and to give more powers to the Office of Fair Trading to take action, where appropriate, against estate agents. We are concerned, however, that in both those regards, the provisions do not cover all house sales. The Minister referred to this matter a moment ago, but we will have to explore it further in Committee. The Government cannot hide behind the supposed complications that follow amending an existing piece of legislation. It seems a grave omission that new homes sold directly by the developer and houses bought and sold off-plan are not covered. After all, that still involves the purchase of a house. It seems illogical that the Government should take a positive step regarding estate agents and yet not extend the same provisions to cover all house sales.
	I am also worried that the penalties set for estate agents will be too low. For example, the penalty for not joining a redress scheme will be only 1,000I think that the amount was raised from 500 to 1,000 in another place. However, given that the average fee charged by estate agents is approximately three times that3,000the penalty does not seem an adequate deterrent. We thus intend to table amendments in Committee that would raise the penalties for that and other rogue practices up to even 10,000.
	The third flaw in this part of the Bill, and the probably single biggest omission in the Bill, is the lack of any reference to the lettings and residential property management markets. There has been rapid growth in that sector over recent years. Indeed, since the Estate Agents Act 1979 was passed, the proportion of the housing stock that is let has increased by a third. Letting not only accounts for a significant proportion of the housing market, but provides a sizeable chunk of the work undertaken by businesses that would call themselves estate agents. That alone should be reason enough for lettings and residential property management work to be included in the definition of estate agency. However, if we add in the fact that consumers in the lettings market are likely to be less able than others to afford professional advice and advocacy, it becomes all the more important that protection should be afforded to them.
	In another place, the Government argued that fully updating the 1979 Act so that it would to cover lettings and residential property management would be too complex. Despite what the Minister for Trade said in his speech, we still find that totally and utterly unconvincing. The Government further argued that the Office of Fair Trading report on the estate agency market did not cover lettingsthe Minister referred to that today. That was, of course, the Government's omission, and I hope they will not in this House rely on that same omission as a justification for disadvantaging a whole group of consumers.
	The redress scheme model that is at the heart of the Bill is a simple enough idea and it is a good one. Conservative Members see no reason at all why the Government could not extend the areas of work covered by redress schemes to include lettings and residential property management. That would be a step in the right direction, but we would urge the Government to go further. They could, and should, use the Bill to update the 1979 Act so that it would cover lettings and, more generally, to make it better reflect a property market that has changed a great deal in the past 28 years. The House might not get an opportunity to examine estate agency again for another 28 years, so surely this is the right time to act.
	Although the Bill is somewhat flimsy, it is not a bad Bill, and there are aims in it that are to be commended, especially the provision of a basic redress scheme for home buyers. Our concerns are about the strength and independence of the new national consumer council and the regulation of estate agents in all their activities. In Committee, we will table amendments to ensure that the NCC is free to publish its reports, to increase the penalties for rogue estate agents, and to extend protection to all house purchases, including those bought off-plan, and the lettings market. In the spirit of what we have seen this afternoon, I hope that the Government will work constructively with us on those issues so that we can make a little more of this well-intentioned Bill. As it stands, the Government risk missing a golden opportunity to modernise the 1979 Act and to bring better protection to home buyers and tenants. The Bill should also give more power, protection and representation to consumers, especially those in vulnerable groups, so my colleagues and I look forward to working with the Government to achieve that.

Tom Clarke: I hope that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) will forgive me if I do not follow up in detail everything that he said. I was slightly surprised, given his Scottish surname, that he seemed to have great difficulty understanding something that we understood perfectly: the accent of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who showed wisdom and good judgment as he made his speech. In case my right hon. Friend gets a wee bit worried, I have some questions to ask before I finish my speech.
	The main thrust of both the Bill and my right hon. Friend's speech to outline the Government's objectives is extremely welcome. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, some parts of the Bill do not apply to Scotlandfor example, we deal differently with estate agents and some would say we had the wisdom not to privatise waterso I hope that I shall be forgiven for dealing only with those parts of the Bill that I genuinely believe are important to my constituents.
	I welcome the fact that the Bill is designed to streamline consumer advocacy. As my remarks will demonstrate, I want to see more consumer advocacy. I also welcome the creation of a body working on behalf of consumers that will have the teeth to stand up to suppliers across the industries covered by the Bill and, indeed, to Governments when it takes the view that that is necessary. However, it seems to me vital to ensure that the responsibilities now carried out by organisations such as Postwatch and Energywatch are not lost along the wayan important point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith).
	In particular, I shall deal [ Interruption.]not with telecommunications, which seem to be playing a part in our debate, but with the energy industry. The House will understand the reasons why. My constituents have strong views on what has been happeningor not happeningrecently to gas and electricity prices. My Lanarkshire colleagues and I have been pursuing these matters since last June, because we are genuinely concerned. Wholesale prices have been falling, but the consumer is not getting the benefit. Some changes have occurred in recent weeks, but they do not go far enough. My interest in the Bill is centred mainly on whether, given the problems in the energy sector in particular, consumers have the protection that I believe they are entitled to expect and that this House might be expected to endorse. I worry that customers are not being given a fair deal in energy and, to be honest, I am looking for further assurances that the Bill leaves room for customers to be made more aware of advocacy than they seem to be today.
	I am particularly concerned about two areas: first, the system for dealing with complaints when they are made and as quickly as possible after they are made; and, secondly, the collation of information on the standards of companies' responses to complaints. My understandingif it is wrong, I am sure that the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Competition Policy, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), will correct me is that responsibility for handling complaints, which are currently dealt with fairly comprehensively by Energywatch, will be split between the new NCC, an expanded Consumer Direct helpline and a new focus on suppliers dealing with complaints effectively themselves. I welcome the greater efficiency that that will bring, but I believe that loopholes remain that need to be tightened up; the debate today and in Committee will give us the opportunity to do that. Later, I shall return to the concept of suppliers regulating their complaints system themselves, but my main worry is that certain types of complaint will fall between the posts of Consumer Direct and the new council.
	We Members of Parliament all receive representations; we seek to deal with them ourselves, if we can, and then we try to get the help that we think ought to be provided by the bodies that we are discussing today. Although many people outside the House support the Government's objectives, as I do, they, like me, have questions. As I think hon. Members are aware, Help the Aged gave an example of a particular case to which we can all relate. An elderly lady found that she had a very large bill; clearly, there had been a mistake, and it was not her fault. She contacted Energywatch, which was able to help. As I understand it, under the new system, no one could offer that help immediately, as Energywatch was able to do. The lady was so worried that she was prepared to pay and deal with the problems later, but she would probably have had even greater problems if she had tried to get a solution on her own. That is the kind of issue that the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Competition Policy will want to take on board; I know that he is as committed to consumers as all other hon. Members involved in the debate are.
	The Bill's huge benefit is that it makes more provision for the new NCC to deal with vulnerable consumers. That is a comprehensive description of many people who have genuine problems, including people with disabilities. People who, for various reasons, are unable to express themselves may find themselves with problems, and they are entitled to the help that society wants to provide.
	On a positive note, I welcome the provisions on disconnections. The cases of which I have been made aware have been, without exception, absolutely repugnant, and I am glad that there is a drive by the Government to make sure that the problem is reduced considerably, if not removed altogether. It is important that Consumer Direct staff have the necessary training to identify and deal tactfully with vulnerable customers, as existing organisations clearly do. That is a key area, and the expertise built up by staff and existing organisations must not simply be lost along the way.

Peter Luff: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He discussed the issue of overcharging by a supplier; he is correct that, in the list in clause 13, there is no provision that the new NCC can apply to deal with overcharging, and I am surprised by that. Furthermore, the clause deals exclusively with electricity and gas, but some of the most worrying cases in my constituency have involved overcharging for water. There is no provision at all in the Bill that covers the special issues relating to water supply. He puts his finger on an important point, and I hope that the Minister will address his concerns in detail when he winds up.

Tom Clarke: I welcome that intervention. Later, I hope to discuss Ofgem, because there are many lessons to be learned. I will give my reasons for saying that at the appropriate time. The hon. Gentleman undoubtedly has a point, and when we had a debate on the same issue in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago, that point was rightly raised several times.
	I am concerned that the new NCC will not have sufficient resources to deal with all the cases involving vulnerable consumers that emerge, and I would like reassurance on that point. Will the new NCC have the capability to help all those who genuinely fall into that category? Some estimate that people in that category account for about 21,000 cases a year.

Robert Smith: The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about vulnerable customers and disconnection. The clause on disconnection requires the new body to take up the consumer's case and advocate on their behalf. The clauses on vulnerable consumers enable it to do so, but do not necessarily require it to do so. If it does not have the resources, it may set a high threshold for the vulnerable customers whom it agrees to help.

Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is on to something but, as I hope to explain, I do not believe that it is enough to introduce legislation to enable public bodies to do things. They must show that they are willing to show their teeth, and I shall go on to discuss Ofgem, because I am not persuaded that that has always been the case. As citizens advice bureaux have pointed out, there should be a duty with regard to vulnerable customers, just as there is in terms of disconnections. Voluntary organisations and Help the Aged have argued for the need not just for empowerment but for clarity in legislation so that people, especially consumers, know what they are entitled to expect.
	It is expected that the shortfall will be reduced or eliminated by suppliers providing better standards of complaint handling, but we are giving a great deal of weight to suppliers' opinions and their commitment or otherwise. I am enormously worried that those standards have been left entirely to the regulator's discretion, so we must monitor that and see how effectively the regulator usesor does not useits powers. Ofgem has made its views abundantly clear to me personallythat is not to mention all the debates that we have had, the correspondence and so onin a meeting about energy prices, in which it said that it regarded its role as one in which it was fully committed to the free market, so it was reluctant to intervene. I do not regard that as acting in consumers' defencepeople expect more than that.

Jim Cunningham: I am inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend. What is the logic of having regulators who say that they cannot do anything and leave it to the free market? Why are we paying them?

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend, who is Member of Parliament for Coventry, South and comes from the fine town of Coatbridgemoreover, he was in the same class at school as memakes a particularly logical point, which I welcome.
	Ofgem's remit is a serious matter, and I know that the House agrees. In the past, wholesale prices have fallen and, again and again, consumers expected to benefit from reductions in retail prices, but that simply did not happen. Ofgem and similar bodies should be subject to a remit that includes the social effectperhaps we should deal with that in later debates. I am not sure that they take that view themselves, but how can they deliver to the consumer, if they do not bear social effects in mind? We cannot ignore those effects in our constituencies, as people come to our surgeries who are unable to meet their bills. We cannot ignore them, when we know that people with prepayment meters are asked to pay far more than the average consumer and, indeed, ourselves. We cannot ignore those back payments, but, seemingly, the people whom we believe to be responsible say that they are powerless to deal with the problem. Lest it be thought that I am being unfair, Mr. Alistair Buchan, who was very courteous when I met him, told the House of Lords Select Committee on Regulators in February that consumer representation was Ofgem's Achilles heel. I agree that that appears to be the case. If it is, we must try to put it right, and the Bill is a wonderful vehicle with which to do that.
	I mentioned energy prices. Ofgem issued a statement on Hogmanaymy hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South will explain to those who are perhaps not in tune that that is 31 Decemberthat if, after a very lengthy period, the power companies failed to pass on to consumers the reduction in wholesale prices, they might be accused of having jam on their fingers. I think the situation called for something much stronger than a statement about Jam on their fingers. There was no problem in terms of the power companies' responsibility to their shareholders or to present or past executives, but where, where, where was the commitment to the consumer? No answer was given to that on Hogmanay or on new year's day. Consistent with the excellent objectives of the Bill, we need to clarify that.

Peter Luff: I shall be slightly less helpful to the right hon. Gentleman this time. It is important to record that many of us feel that Ofgem does a very good job in regulating the energy sector. It understands the problems of energy companies that bought forward in the market and therefore cannot reduce prices as wholesale prices fall. I am totally confident that Ofgem has a firm grip of the situation and as those wholesale prices fall, it will ensure that prices to consumers also come down, as they are now doing.

Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion. He has put it on record and I am sure his constituents will form their view of what he said, just as my constituents will form their view on what I have said.
	Given all that I have said and the fact that we have not reached agreement that the standards of complaint procedure should be written into the BillI think there is still the possibility of persuasion on thatI have little hope, unlike the hon. Gentleman, that that can be dealt with voluntarily.

Peter Luff: It is happening.

Tom Clarke: I am not persuaded of that.

Peter Luff: Of course it is happening.

Tom Clarke: If so, why do the Opposition believe there is a need for the Bill? As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the Labour party was elected on a mandate to seek to protect consumers and that we would not be party to rip-offs, nor will we be. Despite the questions that I have put, which I hope are seen in a positive light, I am delighted that the Government accept their responsibilities. On that, I say very well done indeed.
	If the Bill is to be effective, there must be a duty, rather than a power. We must publicly set out the standards that we expect where we think that that applies. If we do not do so now, I fear that the provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to intervene will be used far sooner than expected. Then, perhaps, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
	Without Energywatch to push and probe, I fear that standards of complaint procedure will rapidly deteriorate. Alistair Buchan intimated as much to me when I met himthat there would be a void which Ofgem can and should fill. The question is whether that would be enough. We must make sure that in the Bill Ofgem is compelled, not invited, to do so.
	Another gap in the new arrangements involves the collating of evidence surrounding complaints. Energywatch has done a fine job of using its own experience and data to identify trends and solve problems. As we all acknowledge, it has made progress on disconnections, billing and so on, which would not have been identified as problems without that outside pressure. The new NCC will have the far greater power to identify problems across sectors, and I welcome that, but it will be hampered in its efforts if the data are not available to it in the first place. I spent months, as have colleagues in Lanarkshire and elsewhere, attempting to get assorted figures concerning the energy sector from companies, and indeed from Ofgem, and I can assure the House that it was no easy job. Our colleagues in Committee will therefore have to give a great deal of thought to that.
	The NCC will be aided by provisions in the Bill on demanding such data. I welcome those provisions, which are absolutely essential. However, the information on a lot of relevant material is not recorded, and we must consider that as well. The Bill must include provision to demand that suppliers keep better records of customers' complaints, and Ofgem must ensure that they are reliable and completely transparent. That is why I have made the plea to it, and regarding it, about the kind of accountability that I thought we had all taken as agreed. Some issues affected by the Bill go beyond being resolved by competition or regulation, and we must explicitly set them out now; otherwise, they will fall by the wayside, to the extreme detriment of consumers.
	All that said, the Bill represents tremendous progress. The debate in another place was extremely well informed, and I have every reason to believe that the same will apply as the Bill makes its way through this House and that we can improve on its excellent objectives. If we do that, the House will be responding to the needs, the rights and, in many cases, the cries of consumers. That is our responsibility today and the reason why I am extremely pleased to say that I shall be supporting the Bill.

Susan Kramer: Let me start by picking up what the Minister said at the beginning of his speech about the unfair commercial practices directive and how it will work with the Bill to create a stronger framework for consumers and consumer protection. He then did something that can be fatal, and provided a list of examples of items that he thought would be covered by the directive. One was missing, and I would like to put it on the record. The Irish Government have interpreted aspects of the directive as an opportunity to tackle the practice of companies charging extra to people who pay by some mechanism other than direct debit, even though those people are typically the most vulnerablefor example, those who do not have bank accounts that allow them to use direct debit, or who are trying to keep very close control of their finances. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity that the directive provides, along with the Bill, and working with the new national consumer council, to take on that issue and add it to the Minister's list.
	Let me join the Minister and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) in congratulating the other place on its work on the Bill. I should like to mention Lord Razzall, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lord Lee of Trafford, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats. The Earl of Caithness, for the Conservatives, produced some interesting amendments, the most important of which, unfortunately, was not passed, but should be revisited by this House.
	We all have a common goal: the better protection of consumers and better regulation of estate agencies. Much of the purpose of the Bill is to seek economies and efficiencies in delivering that protection and regulation. It is absolutely key, however, that protections are not diluted in the restructuring of the consumer watchdog agencies, and that protections for estate agencies are adequate to the task rather than directed by resource availability. Much of that work will be taken up in Committee, but let me use this opportunity to raise a few framework questions.
	First, let me deal with consumer protection. We all understand that a new national consumer council will initially replace the current National Consumer Council, Postwatch and Energywatch, and that the Bill also provides for abolishing the Consumer Council for Water and the transfer of its functions.
	I am not making a partisan comment when I say that, despite earlier ambitions to include rail, air, telecoms and even financial services, the body with which we are presented is much narrower than the original concept. It appears that the new body largely comprises elements associated with the Department of Trade and Industry, with water possibly joining later. The goal of one seamless structure to deal with all consumer protection remains way ahead of us. We will need to examine it in future.
	Given that we do not have a single overarching body, it becomes relevant to ask questions about the individual pieces that have been identified as forming part of the new national consumer council. The Minister for Trade knows that the Consumer Council for Water was set up only in October 2005, and that its work during the last drought was driven by its ability to have a regional focus in England itself as well as throughout the UK. The new NCC structure does not necessarily accommodate that. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton outlined, a price review is due in 2009 and there will be consultation on the water franchise directive in December 2008.
	The Minister for Trade suggestedand the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton appeared to agree with himthat a review to accelerate the inclusion of the water body might be a way round the various aspects of the timetable. If such agreement has been building between Labour and Conservative Front Benchers, I disagree with them. Surely the best resolution to the problem is delay, so as to include the Consumer Council for Water in 2011 rather than accelerating the process, given the important role that it has to play. It should engage in responding to the water franchise directive immediately, not after 2008.

Ian McCartney: There is no collusion between Front Benchers on the matter. I gave the House a genuine insight into a meeting that I held to try to discuss the way forward. The hon. Lady's speech is a typical Liberal Democrat response. She starts by criticising us for not including all the regulators in the Bill, but less than 30 seconds later, she criticises us for including one.

Susan Kramer: I feel strongly that delay is the best mechanism for ensuring that water is protected for the consumer. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton appeared to be enthusiastic about the Minister's proposal.
	On timing, Postwatch comes immediately to mind. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will shortly provide the results of the consultation on the compulsory closure of 2,500 Post Office branches. I understand that in the other place, the Government gave assurances that the Bill provides for the new NCC to investigate any matters relating to the number and location of public post offices. However, the Bill uses the word may and avoids shall. The notion of going through a minimum of 2,500 Post Office branch closures with a consumer body that only may consider the matter, and is not required to do so, is discouraging. I hope that in Committee the Government will reconsider the idea of using the word shall instead of may.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am sure that the hon. Lady has examined the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade points out to me that clause 16, entitled Investigations relating to public post offices, states that the Council may investigate. It therefore has a role.

Susan Kramer: I repeat that the use of the word may is the cause of our concern, and the Minister has just confirmed that I have read the clause correctly. It is extremely important that there be representation on this issue, and I ask the Government to look at the matter again.

Alan Duncan: Perhaps I am on the Minister's side on this question. When the clause says may, it means has the power to; therefore the council can investigate. This is not a question of the council investigating if the Minister lets it; it will be empowered to do so.

Susan Kramer: I repeat that I am concerned. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could give me an assurance that this will not simply be a question of the council having the power to investigate.

Ian McCartney: The reason why clause 16 is in the Bill is to give absolute certainty, because in the past, these have been grace and favour arrangements involving the Post Office. The Bill sets out the provisions with absolutely clarity for the first time, and I give the hon. Lady that assurance. That is the whole purpose of clause 16.

Susan Kramer: I thank the Minister. We are now moving forward. In the House of Lords we were unable to obtain that assurance, so I am pleased to have heard that from him today.
	The Minister will also be aware that there are resources contingent on providing that scope and level of review. A devolved structure has worked for Postwatch in carrying out such a review. We have no guarantee as to how the different regions of England will find a way of being adequately represented and heard, because post office branches are a local issue. Dealing with what happens in one community, compared with another, requires a great deal of local sensitivity. It would be helpful for our constituents up and down the country if they understood how the new body will deal with that set of issues.
	The turmoil among staff should not be underestimated. When a major process of sweeping post office closures on this scale is under way, it is not always clear whether the minds of the staff will always be on the task in hand, of protecting consumers. They might instead be thinking about their future, about where their office may be, or about whether to stay with the organisation or look for another job. That is a serious set of concerns, and it is an argument for a delay in bringing Postwatch into the new body.
	There is also the potential for loss of expertise. We have no assurance that the people who have built up the necessary expertise in this area will not decide, perhaps even for a simple reason such as the location of their new headquarters, to move on in their careers. This is not the time for that kind of change.

Ian McCartney: There are issues of implementation, but that is all that they are. They are not issues of principle. Surely the Liberal Democrats are not saying that they want us to remove this measure from the Bill, as that would disbar the people who use postal services in their millions from having redress if mistakes are made. That is a ludicrous position to take. It is one thing to say that we need to ensure that the implementation of the provisions is effective and that there is proper consultationwhich there is; these people are part of the fortnightly and monthly meetings on the implementation strategy, as of rightbut it is quite another thing to say that we should not include the measures in the Bill, leaving the users of postal services with no redress until such time as another Bill is introduced. The Liberal Democrats are adopting a nonsensical position.

Susan Kramer: Again, I disagree with the Minister. Access to redress does not appear to be contingent on introducing all the watchdogs in phase 1. There are mechanisms to deal with this issue. I must stress that implementation matters, as the Government must surely have learned across a wide variety of public services. Yes, the policy needs to be correct, as do the strategy and the framework, but as far as the consumer is concerned, implementation is everything.
	We are talking about 2,500 post office closures, but those are just the compulsory closures. We have not yet discussed the number of voluntary closures that might take place, particularly as Government business shifts away from the Post Office, making it less attractive for quite a number of postmistresses and postmasters to continue in their business. Presumably, they will be replaced by some kind of outreach service, and there will be sets of issues around all of that. The timing is particularly awful.

Peter Luff: I want to come to the hon. Lady's aidpartly, at least, as she seems to be being attacked from both sides of the House. If the Government were to declare now where the headquarters of the new organisation is to beand if it were to be in Londonthat would give some certainty to the many Postwatch staff who are concerned about the disruption that might be caused to their personal lives, so that their expertise might be retained by the new organisation. That expertise could then be used to advise on the post office closure programme if the Government decided to proceed with rapid implementation.

Susan Kramer: I agree that the turmoil and uncertainty will make everything worse. I have been part of organisations that have undergone drastic changeI must confess that that was in the banking sectorand I know that it is unwise to underestimate the impact of such changes on both morale and performance.
	Let me now raise the issue of Energywatch, which was discussed so articulately by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston andI hate this long constituency name! Perhaps Coatbridge will do.

Tom Clarke: My constituency is Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. May I add that I should have referred earlier to Mr. Buchanan rather than to Mr. Buchan?

Susan Kramer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke of the issues surrounding the abolition of Energywatch. In principle we can envisage its becoming part of the new body, but there are questions to be asked about timing and implementation. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there has been strong evidence of sticky fingers as energy suppliers have seen wholesale prices decline, and have delayed lowering their prices to the domestic consumer asymmetrically in terms of the point at which they raised them when wholesale prices rose.
	There are questions to be asked about smart metering, and about the effectiveness of consumer switching at a time of volatile pricing. We need to discuss the key role that Energywatch has played in promoting energy efficiency and dealing with issues of sustainability at a time when we are all concerned about climate change. We need to be certain that those activities and strengths will not be lost. The Government must appreciate what a difficult period we are experiencing when introducing changes such as this.
	Like the rest of my party, I strongly support the redress structures that the Bill foresees. I also support the ombudsman system, which builds on the previous energy ombudsman system. However, the scope of redress is left largely to the discretion of the Secretary of State. There is little in the Bill about the operation of the system, and we have a number of questions to ask about issues such as the principle of multiple competitive ombudsmen. We have all observed on examination boards the preference of providers to seek the friendliest arbiter. Multiple ombudsmen pose the risk of a race to the bottom, and a race to be the most sympathetic.
	What concerns me most about the transferring of watchdog bodies to the new national consumer council is the potential lossindeed, the recognised lossof the advocacy provided by the current system. Postwatch has had difficulty in the pastalthough recently it has got its act together and become something of an effective advocatebut I do not think anyone would argue that Energywatch is anything other than an effective advocate. The new council will not pursue individual investigations except in relation to a narrowly defined group of the most vulnerable people. We would like a much clearer definition of vulnerablea definition of those included in that group, and preferably an expansion of the definition.
	The Minister said that he wished the new body to be the lion that would roar, not the mouse that would squeak. That, too, prompts a series of concerns. As the Minister implied, for most people Consumer Direct will act simply as a traffic light system. People will telephone it, and will be given a number on which to contact, for instance, the complaints office of their energy supplier. They will pursue the matter for three months, and if they do not get anywhere they can hope for a deadlock letter from the supplier. They will then have an opportunity to fill up many forms and consult the ombudsman. The industry is undoubtedly attracted to that structure, because it hopes that many consumers will abandon the process out of frustration.
	Energywatch has been diligent in pursuing the issues of the individual consumer. If we look at its record, we will see that it recovered 6.7 million in compensation and bill reductions for domestic consumers in 2005 and 2006. The average award for a domestic consumer with a billing complaintthat accounts for two thirds of complaintswas 168. That is serious money. It had in-depth contact with over 220,000 consumers, and 62,000 complaints merited detailed investigation with the energy companies because they could not be easily resolved. It reduced disconnections of vulnerable customers from 26,000 four years ago to 3,000 today, which is remarkable.
	I have personal experience of many of the difficulties of dealing with the utilities. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am quite recently widowed. I have had to change the name on many of my utility accounts. I have also moved. When I mention those factors to the energy suppliers, and we meet them when they are out lobbying, they immediately turn very pale and the standard response is, Oh, my God. Trying to deal with the customer service arm of many of those utilities is dire. If I had not been working on this speech over the weekend, I would have been trying to compare quite a number of bills; I think that I am being sent them for the wrong property. Over and over again, I have talked to one consumer after anotherand this is a difficult and complex process.
	I note, for example, that, in late 2005 British Gas migrated millions of its customers to a new account and billing system. There were significant problems, and Energywatch received over 6,000 complaints in just six months. To this day, customers are still having the same problems with British Gas, including not being able to get through to the call centre. British Gas has said that it will not reach business as usual until mid-2007. However, it was kind enough to provide a briefing on the Bill. It is delighted with the new structure because it
	believes that the existing measures that energy suppliers have in place to manage complaints are sufficient.
	There is complacency among suppliers and pleasure in getting the new structure, because they believe that it will finally get that nuisance called Energywatch off their backs.
	I understand the importance of having a code of conduct as part of becoming a member of a redress scheme, which would require energy suppliers and any other providers to have a proper complaints resolution scheme in place. All that will be important, and I hope that it can be strengthened in Committee, but I make the following point to the Minister: the new national consumer council should have the powers, and if necessary be assured that it could get the resources, to step back into the advocacy role if the new scheme does not provide the level of service and the resolution that customers have finally begun to achieve after many years of not being able to get their complaints appropriately dealt with. It seems that that is a relatively risky new step. We are taking a chance that the providers, the energy suppliers and others will step up to the level of service that they have been prodded into by groups such as Energywatch and Postwatch. There should be a plan B for dealing with the situation if that is not accomplished.
	I am also concerned about businesses. I know that the Minister in the other place gave an assurance that the definition of customers includes businesses. Obviously, in the past the various watchdog bodies have had a specific specialised focus on small businesses. The Minister will be aware that the Federation of Small Businesses is concerned that that same focus may not be shared by the new NCC. Indeed, there is a lack of clarity about the focus of the new NCC, what its culture will be, how intensively it will chase down different issues, and how it will manage its priorities. There is little discussion about that, other than our being told Trust me that those who are in chargeLord Whitty and othersare people of integrity and will do a good job. That is not an adequate answer.
	Could we at least get some clarity on the funding of the NCC? Historically, the energy supply industry has provided the funding for the energy watchdog, and the Post Office for Postwatch. That money is now to be merged into the new NCC, and the Department of Trade and Industry has arranged for the funds to be provided to the NCC itself. However, it is unclear whether that will continue to be the arrangement over the long term, particularly if the NCC decides to focus much of its energies outside the traditional sectors. We must have some clarity about that.
	In terms of the publishing of reports, consumer confidence will be essential. Information must be made available to the public. That is the case not only because the taxpayer will largely have paid for the reports, but because the idea that an issue that affects consumers should be kept away from consumers, and that reports that might reveal areas of concern should not be fully disclosed, is completely unacceptable in this day and age. The public disclosure of all reports is essential.
	I now turn to measures to do with estate agents, which account for a major proportion of the Bill. We welcome the proposals to require estate agents to join a redress scheme and to keep the necessary records, and many of the other innovations that the Bill would introduce. The proposals are not particularly radical, but they represent an improvement on the situation in the past. However, I wish to raise again the concern about the idea of multiple ombudsman schemes; there is a fear that the industry will tend to head for the body that will give it the easiest time, and there could be a race to the bottom.

Mark Prisk: Does the hon. Lady not agree that what matters is the standards that must be applied to such schemes, and that if there is a common set of standards, whether there are two or three redress or ombudsman schemes is, frankly, neither here nor there?

Susan Kramer: I hope that a multiple scheme system would operate like that, but I am concerned. Because the schemes will make their money from the number of customers they attract, when so much is a matter of interpretation and so many issues are subjective there will be a great temptation to weaken schemes, rather than to strengthen them.
	The Minister has spoken about one of our most fundamental concernsthe fact that the Bill does not cover the lettings industry, which is worth 12 billion. Although he implied that that would be dealt with in a sort of phase 2, I ask that some work be done now so that at least the principle of including lettings is added to the Bill. Delay in such an area would be unfair to consumers. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made the point that people who rent are more likely than those who buy to be vulnerable and to have difficulties in taking on the system; that underscores the importance of getting action on lettings.
	Shelter conducted an interesting case study that showed that some people were charged as much as 300 in fees for the simplest lettings processes, which is completely out of kilter with the amount of work involved. The Bill would give no opportunity for redress in such circumstances. I do not understand, either, why the definition of what is an estate agent or what is estate agency work cannot be adapted to include developers who sell their own properties, whether they sell them off-plan or after they have been built. That is a huge loophole.
	As was mentioned often by those who spoke on behalf of my party in the other place, it is completely unacceptable to have a maximum penalty of only 1,000 for operating outside the scheme. We recognise that that has been increased from 500, but we will continue to seek an upward adjustment. The average estate agency commission on a single sale is more than 3,000; that should be the minimum fine for a first offence, rising to a far higher sum if there are future offences. We have suggested the sum of 10,000, which, interestingly, I also heard being suggested today.
	The redress scheme does not include any capacity to monitor what is going on in the industry. That will continue to be the responsibility of consumers at large, Which? or the BBC. That raises in my mind questions about the Government's approach to having negative licensing, rather than positive as well as negative licensing. The fact that almost anyone can set up as an estate agent without a single qualification for the job is to me, and I believe, to most consumersboth purchasers and sellerscompletely unacceptable.
	Consumer dissatisfaction with estate agents is high. The Office of Fair Trading report, having first said that nine out of 10 people buying or selling a home used an estate agent, goes on to say that around a quarter of them were dissatisfieda high level of dissatisfaction. However, few of those people made a formal complaint to the OFT. That is a difficult and challenging process and people do not have the time to do it. They want to get the business over and done with. The industry does not have many fans. It has done its own research and found that only one person in 10 thought that one could usually trust an estate agent.
	In 2005 the voluntary ombudsman scheme, to which only two thirds of agents belong, received a whopping 6,000 complaints. Anyone who saw BBC1's Whistleblower programme in March 2006 will have heard about a whole culture of dirty tricks. For most people a house purchase is the largest investment they will ever make. For many it is their retirement nest egg, and a purchase that they will make very few times in their lives. Many people make a purchase in a new part of the country, in an area that they do not know and where they have few points of reference. In such circumstances no one would dream of using an unqualified solicitor and expecting them to provide the necessary paperwork for a house purchase. However, we do expect people to employ a possibly unqualified estate agent, and that seems unacceptable to me.
	A redress scheme is all well and good, but surely it would be better to prevent the problem with proper training and qualifications for estate agents. Indeed, the National Association of Estate Agents and Which?two different sides of the coinboth support that approach. We would not need to invent the qualifications as there is an NVQ level 3, introduced three years ago, which would be an adequate qualification. I mentioned the Earl of Caithness at the beginning of my speech, but his small attempt to amend section 22 of the Estate Agents Act 1979, which sets out standards of competence for estate agents, was defeated.
	I lived for many years in the US, where every estate agent has to be licensed. It is not a barrier to competition, but having bought and sold houses in both countries, I can say that the level of service available in the US, where I had a qualified and licensed agent, was a world away from the quality of service in the UK. I hear similar reports from almost everybody to whom I talk. Therefore, I ask the Government to reconsider that issue.
	I hope that, as they have suggested, the Government have an open mind on many of the potential improvements that could be made to the Bill. We all want quality protection for consumers. None of us wants to waste money, but bad practice is costly to the consumer, the economy and the taxpayer. Let us not make a false economy. I hope that in the next phases of the Bill's passage we can add many provisions that will strengthen consumer protection and make it more effective.

Desmond Turner: I shall be brief. I welcome the Bill. It will greatly strengthen consumer protection and make it more transparent and accessible to the public, which is devoutly to be welcomed. However, an opportunity is being missed. This Bill is a useful legislative vehicle of a kind, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) pointed out, that does not come along very oftenperhaps every 25 or 30 years. It would be wise to make the most of it.
	I am in a curious position today. I little thought when I entered Parliament that I would end up speaking with the backing of estate agentsnot an element of society with whom I normally associate but the National Association of Estate Agents will, I think, endorse my brief remarks on the regulation, or licensing, of estate agents, in particular of letting agents.
	The buy-to-let and private rental sectors have mushroomed in recent years and are particularly prevalent in my constituency. For that reason, I am glad that the Government's new national tenancy deposit scheme is starting up, as it will be important. It will, for instance, save thousands of my constituents from beingliterallyrobbed of their deposits by unscrupulous letting agents. Money is being withheld for no genuine reason. Of course, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) pointed out, that is not the only way in which unscrupulous letting agents fleece vulnerable tenants. By definition, people in the private rented sector are more vulnerable; they cannot obtain mortgages and do not have the income to get on to the property ladder, so they are at the mercy of letting agents who have all sorts of ways of charging wholly unreasonable fees. In fact some of the activities I have come across can only be described as scandalous.
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has for the moment set his face against positive licensing, but will he reconsider that position during the passage of the Bill through the House? It seems to me that although the redress schemes are welcome and necessary and should be used, far fewer people would have to resort to them if estate agents were licensed. There would then be a reasonable expectation of minimum standards of professional competence and integrity, and a code of conduct would inhibit cowboy elements. There would thus be fewer transgressions that caused members of the public to have recourse to the redress scheme.

James Duddridge: Given that in most surveys estate agents and MPs are lumped together at the bottom of the league table as the most disreputable people, and that from the evidence in the national newspapers further regulation and codes of conduct have not seemed to do any good in politics, why does he think they will do any good in estate agency?

Desmond Turner: I have to take exception to the hon. Gentleman's latter point. I accept his point about the popularity of politicians and estate agents, although I think we just about shade estate agentsat least I hope so; I should be bitterly disappointed to think that we were classed at exactly the same level. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that sensible regulation cannot work. Good, reasonably light-touch regulationit does not need to have knobs oncould be overseen by a body such as the NAEA itself. An annual licence fee will not make a big hole in the enormous turnover of estate agents, given that the sale of just one property can produce a fee of 3,000. If licensing promotes justice for tenants and property buyers it is well worth doing.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister said that he was unwilling to move to regulate letting agents because of the lack of an adequate evidence base. Will he consider incorporating in the Bill enabling clauses to provide that in one year, or a maximum of two years, there should be such an evidence base? The Government would then be able to act rapidly and implement a scheme of regulation without having to wait another 20 years for a slot in the Queen's Speech. That is the main wishnot gripeI want to put to my right hon. Friend. I ask him to consider it seriously, as it could make an enormous improvement and make a good, well-intentioned Bill even better.

Peter Luff: It is not my intention to spend much time discussing the parts of the Bill that deal with estate agents. However, the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) prompts me to bring forward some remarks I had intended to make later in my speech.
	I am indebted to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which has enabled me to draw some definitive conclusions about the relative popularity of estate agents and Members of Parliament. I have good news for the hon. Gentleman: we do indeed shade estate agents. The survey states:
	These cards show different types of people. Please put them on this board to show which you would generally trust to tell the truth and which you wouldn't.
	The answers showed that family doctors scored 93 per cent.; your local MP scored 48 per cent.; MPs in general scored 29 per cent.; estate agents scored 24 per cent. and journalists on newspapers such as  The Sun, The Mirror or the Daily Star scored 9 per cent. But where are Ministers? Their score is 23 per cent.1 per cent. lower than the estate agents they aspire to regulate in the Bill. Perhaps we should have a Bill to deal with Ministersnot in this Government, but Governments in generalrather than the Bill we are considering. There is a certain irony in the ranking.

Ian McCartney: rose

Peter Luff: I give way with pleasure to the Minister, whom I hugely like and respect.

Ian McCartney: In that case I take it that the hon. Gentleman's last remark was an apology.

Peter Luff: Yes, that is right. An apology on behalf of us all for the political class who seem to have lost the trust of the general public.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) and other Members dealt comprehensively with estate agent issues, so I want to talk about other aspects of the Bill. It is my intention to be non-partisan, as my hon. Friend was. However, the more I listen to the debate the more anxious I become about aspects of the Bill. I think we have now clarified that the DTI website is out of date and illiterate. It noted that the Bill
	completed it's passage through the House of Lords.
	That apostrophe is a grievous error. It stated that the Bill would be given its Second Reading in the House of Commons and then referredin large lettersto Consumer Voice. However, it is quite clear that the name Consumer Voice has been dropped by Ministers and the body will now be called the national consumer council. I admit that is not a big point, but it is important. I would have liked a new name for the new body, if it is to have a new role. A bit of rebranding would help to give people the idea that the new body had a slightly different and more ambitious purpose. I regret the fact that we are sticking with the old name.
	Perhaps I should declare an interest on behalf of all of us. I think the Bill's philosophy is right; it has the right objective, but as so often in politics it is a question of how we reach it. I have a big reservation about the abolition, in effect, of the consumer complaint function of Energywatch in particular, but also of Postwatch. We could experience a big increase in our constituency casework for a considerable period of time, because all the problems currently referred to Energywatch and Postwatch will comes to MPs instead. The House should be warned: this is a Bill to increase the postbags of Members of Parliament. Of course, that is not to say that the objective of the proposals is not honourableit probably is.
	I think that the Minister and most Members would agree that the ultimate safeguard for the consumer is a competitive market. In a truly competitive market, the consumer can say, I don't like the service you have offered me, so I will go to someone else instead. That is the real protection: the discipline on the provider of a service or goods that if he does not perform he loses the consumer's business. In that context, Ofcom's decision to abandon price regulation in the telecommunications sector is interesting. Competition in the sector is now so intense that price regulation effectively becomes otiose. If we try to shift our mobile phone operators these days, the deals that we can negotiate with our current operator or prospective new ones are legion. That is clearly right.
	As I understand it, the new structure that the Bill is designed to bring to consumer redress issues is based on the empowerment of the consumer. The consumer should do more of his or her complaining, assisted by the Consumer Direct service. The proposed national consumer council will look more at the general overarching themes of consumer protection and consumer advocacy and will have a greater advocacy role. Where things cannot be reconciled by a direct complaint with the provider through whatever alternative resolution process is available, there is an ombudsman to deal with those hardest cases. I have no problem with that in principle, but the question is whether the various markets dealt with in the Bill are ready for this new philosophical approach.
	I know that sceptical comments have been made about the Bill's purpose. Is it a cost-saving measure? Well, it should save some costs, but I will give the Government the benefit of the doubt, as I do not think that that is the leading motive. I am concerned, however, about change for change's sake, and I shall return to that a little later. Change can often be very confusing for the people served by the organisations whose functions are being changed. The basic idea of removing the state-funded intermediary and putting more power into consumers' handswith advice from state-funded bodies such as Consumer Directis a sound one.
	Let us reflect on some of the particular issues. I was interested to read the National Consumer Council's briefing, which endorses that basic approach. It states:
	The present combination of complaints handling and policy advocacy has necessitated that resources are channelled into resolving complaints which has left advocacy under funded and less effective than it might be.
	I think it has a point there and that the new structure in the Bill stands a real chance of improving matters. I will return to some of the NCC's specific concerns about energy regulation a little later.
	I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), who was worried about the completeness of the package offered in the Bill. It aspires to establish a more all-embracing consumer body, yet the two specific functions being rolled into it areas she rightly said, and perhaps coincidentally, perhaps notthe Department of Trade and Industry functions of postal services and energy, rather than the issues of huge concern to consumers, such as the rail sector, financial services, telecommunications and water, even though the latter is included in the Bill.
	Let us examine clause 24, particularly subsections (1) and (9), which deal with the provision of information to the council. Subsection (1) states:
	The Council may, by notice, require a person within subsection (3) to supply it with such information as is specified or described in the notice within such reasonable period as is so specified.
	Subsection (9) states that a designated regulator means
	the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority... the Postal Services Commission... the Water Services Regulation Authority... or other person prescribed by the Secretary of State by order.
	I would have thought that some of the biggest issues brought to the proposed national consumer council are likely to be about rail fares, which are a matter of great controversy. I would like the Bill to give the National Consumer Council the confidence that it can expect the information to which it has a right to come from whatever body is responsible in the new railway environmentthe Department for Transport, the train-operating companies or whatever. It would be good to see such a provision fleshed out in Committee to ensure that issues of concern to consumers are fully addressed by the new national consumer council.
	I happen to think that there is a case for change in the system of regulation as well as consumer protection. It is an interesting questionthough I am not advocating it at presentto ask whether the postal regulator, Postcomm, should merge with the communications regulator, Ofcom. When a company is looking into what medium it wants to use to promote its services, it considers a range of options, including direct mail marketing, internet and television advertising, printed media advertising and across the whole spectrum.
	More than 90 per cent. of our post in the UK is now business post; only about 7 per cent. is stamped, with letters passing to and from individuals. There is a case for change, but we have to be very careful when we change something, because people get used to systems. They think they know how it works and suddenly the system is abandoned. As far as I can recall, Postcomm was set up only in the Postal Services Act 2000, so it is quite a new organisation. It had a bit of a bumpy start and many would say that it did not do a very good job to begin with, but it has now become very effective. Yet precisely at the moment it becomes effective, it is all change again. I shall deal in more detail later with the impact of the round of post office closures.
	I worry about change. I have been in the House for 15 years, during which time I have seen the health service change, change, change and change again in a great circle. It has come back roughly to where it began when I joined the House 15 years ago, with the same system of structures back in place. It is all very well for the experts who are part of the health sector, as they are able to understand the details, but for the poor individual constituentnever mind the Member of Parliament trying to keep up with it allit poses a real challenge. I am nervous about changing the structure of regulation, as it might actually disempower rather than empower consumers, as they may have a lesser understandingat least in the interimof the systems put in place allegedly to protect them.
	We have an enormous array of watchdogs and ombudsmen, and the Bill does only a very limited amount of tidying up. We have the parliamentary ombudsman, various sector-specific ombudsmen, the Office of Fair Trading, the Financial Services Authority, Consumer Direct, the trading standards departments of our county councils and unitary authoritiesthe list goes on and on. The Bill will provide some greater coherence to the system, but not a great deal more. I am worried that in many ways we are not doing enough to rationalise the system. Much will depend on the effectiveness of Consumer Direct.
	I would like to deal with two specific issues in greater detailenergy and postal services. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry produced its third report of this Session on 6 March and it included some words of warning on Postwatch in the light of the Bill. It said:
	We understand that the likely timescale for the integration of Postwatch within this new single organisation is around mid-2008. Given the organisation's role in the consultation process it would be unfortunate if this major reorganisation were to occur in the middle of the restructuring programme
	the restructuring of post offices. It offers a recommendation for the Secretary of State, stating:
	We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is 'reflecting upon' the likely timetable for the moving of Postwatch's functions into the proposed single consumer body, and urge him to reflect quickly in order to prevent unnecessary uncertainty within Postwatch
	a point also made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton.
	I am very apprehensive indeed about the timing. The National Consumer Council's answer is to make more rapid progress with the merger of the bodies to create the certainty. That may be another way forward, but I am clear that the uncertainty that is inevitably being suffered by experienced individuals in Postwatch is not good when we face a very important round of post office closures with very significant consequences for deprived communitiesurban and rural alikeover the next 18 or so months. I would like to hear more in the Minister's reply about the Government's view of the impact on Postwatch of the changes in the Bill.
	I repeat what I said in an earlier interventionthat I do not think Postwatch handled the urban reinvention programme terribly well and that I do not think that Post Office Counters handled the programme terribly well either. The lessons have been learned and we now have an organisation that can genuinely help achieve the right balance in the closures, yet it is suddenly thrown into the maximum possible degree of uncertainty at precisely the time when its expertise is most needed. I am considerably concerned about that.
	There is also the question of reliance on an ombudsman service for aggrieved consumers and I intervened on the Minister for Trade in his opening remarks to make a point about it. We already have an energy ombudsman in place, up and running alongside the telecommunications ombudsman, run by the same company. I spoke to a charming gentleman in the corporate affairs department today. I apologise publicly for mistaking his accent as a Yorkshire one when it was a Lancashire onea pretty serious crimebut I was impressed by what he told me about the working of the telecommunications and energy services regulator. As far as I am aware, there is still no postal services regulator in place, so it seems worrying that we are talking about abolishing the Postwatch function and putting more responsibility back on the mail companies to provide redress for consumers. There is no ultimate redress, so a move on the timing of the establishment of a postal services ombudsman would be welcome.
	Clause 12, which deals with the complaints of vulnerable consumers, relates to both the postal services and energy services aspects of the Bill. It is an important issue. The new national consumers council is empowered to act in the interests of vulnerable customers and defines what they are. The clause gives the new council the ultimate jurisdiction over what constitutes vulnerability. As far as I can recall, it is a test of the reasonableness of expecting the individual to take forward the complaint him or herself. On the face of it, that seems a reasonable provision, but who will decide whether the NCC has made the right judgment? If it is not particularly long on resources, as I expect it will not belike the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am in favour of the efficient operation of public servicesI fear that there will be real pressure to giving the benefit of the doubt always to not taking forward the complaint. We will need to know how we can challenge the NCC's decision not to take forward a complaint on behalf of a vulnerable consumer.
	I briefly mentioned the question of location in an earlier intervention, so I will not labour that point. However, I repeat my view that if the people working for the various bodies affected by the Bill can have an early indication of where the new headquarters will be, they will be able to make a much more informed judgment about the impact on their personal lives and we will be much more likely to maximise our access to their services.
	The Government have strongly emphasised the need to create a
	stronger, cross-sectoral consumer advocacy body to address consumer issues that frequently arise across sectors of the economy.
	However, they also talk about the need to make sure that they have access to expertise. It will be good to hear exactly how that expertise will be protected within the new reformed system and, if it is going to be protected so robustly, what was the point of destroying the old bodies that offered that expertise in the first place? I am not saying that it is wrong to do so; I am just saying that the idea needs to be tested a little more thoroughly than it has been so far.
	I repeat the point I made earlier about Postwatch having improved significantly. The review carried out in March 2006 by PricewaterhouseCoopers said that the body had been effective in being assertive in challenging the Royal Mail Group, as a monopolistic supplier, which it is. The Royal Mail has some interesting ideas on the stocks at presentfor example, zonal pricing for business users of mailthat raise fundamental questions about the universal service obligation and so on. Competition is now beginning to develop in the postal services sector, with the Government playing their part in taking business away from the Royal Mail Group. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions has taken its business and put it with a competitor to the Royal Mail Group. There are now big issues in the postal market, and I am not saying that that is wrong. Competition is a good thing. However, it seems a little worrying to be doing away with Postwatch and risking losing its expertise at precisely this moment.
	I think that Members will have received a brief from WWAV Rapp Collins, which claimsI have no reason to dispute its claimthat it is
	Europe's largest direct marketing services provider and creates marketing campaigns using all media including direct mail.
	It boasts that its clients include
	the NSPCC, WWF, Cancer Research UK, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Unicef, Plan UK and the Blue Cross.
	WWAV Rapp Collins has big concerns about the proposal for zonal pricing. It says:
	Fundamentally, there has never been a greater need for an organisation with the expertise and authority of PostWatch. It will be to the severe detriment of all users of mail if it disappears into a watered down umbrella organisation.
	This is a difficult and challenging time to be abolishing Postwatch.

Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the impact of zonal pricing. Although he is right that most of the Royal Mail's customers will now be businesses, the recipients of those businesses' services are the individual constituents who live in our communities. They need to be able to receive that mail as well.

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman's intervention speaks for itself. I obviously agree with him. I think that 93 per cent. of all postal services are now provided for businesses and only 7 per cent. for others. He is right. The post ends up going through the post boxes of ordinary people who want a decent service and it is important that that service is protected properly and effectively. I am sure that the Minister will try to reassure me on that when he replies.
	On Energywatch, the NCC rightly says:
	Energy is a lifeline service for consumers; if a problem cannot be quickly rectified the consequences can be very serious.
	An essential part of the policy objective behind the Bill is to give companies more responsibility for handling complaints.
	It then makes an important and interesting point when it adds:
	Unless the regulators see complaint handling as central to their role, this overall strategy will fail. Part of the failure of regulation in these sectors is that regulators have not viewed complaints-handling as a priority. If this is to be remedied, regulators should have an obligation to exercise this role.
	The NCC worryingly concludes:
	There is a risk that Consumer Direct, the new NCC and the ombudsman scheme will be overrun with higher-than-expected complaint volumes if this issue is not addressed.
	I said earlier that I support the Bill's objective. It is sound intellectually, but there is the awkward problem of the interregnum and the changeover periodgetting from a very desirable A to the even more desirable B of effectively dealing with complaints. I place the remarks in the context of a concern I have. I said earlier that the most effective protection that the consumer can have is competition and the ability to choose which company or organisation supplies them with services. I actually think that the energy market is becoming less competitive, and that concerns me. We are seeing increasing vertical integration in the hands of a small number of foreign owners in the energy sector. The good work being done by the European Commission to open the European energy marketI welcome it unreservedly, even though it is a little belatedmay mean that it starts to cast a rather sceptical eye over the British energy market. It is much more integrated than it used to be, with adverse consequences for competition.
	There is an independent energy supplier in my constituency and it has provided me with chapter-and-verse explanations of how it finds it difficult to get into the market. It has real concerns about the way in which Ofgem regulates the market. It points out that the failure of the big energy companies to bring in smart metering is a failure of competition in the marketplace. The consumer would be empowered if he or she had smart meters in their home to see exactly what is happening to their energy consumption. If the market were truly competitive, the energy supply companies would be falling over themselves to provide us with that information and so offer us a better service, but they are not doing that. They are actually looking to the Government for handouts to introduce the scheme. It should not be like that. An empowered consumer should have a smart meter. The absence of smart metering is an indication of the declining competitiveness of the energy market.
	The NCC will face important challenges in dealing with regulation and dealing with complaints from consumers. As we migrate from the current system, in which Energywatch has a big role, to a different system in which the companies will expect to have a bigger role and the ombudsman takes on the difficult cases, there is a risk that consumers' real concerns could become stranded. The Bill deals with issues relating to disconnection, and rightly so, but many customers face problems with large billsa point helpfully made by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke). I am not convinced that the proposed system will mean in the short term that their problems can be addressed.
	The three-month delay is the crucial point. It takes a lot of bloody-mindedness to pursue an energy company for three months before one goes to the ombudsman. I have had a run-in with BT over the past few days, and it has driven me to distraction. It takes a lot of bloody-mindedness, and sometimes vulnerable people who need help will not necessarily have the skills and the determination to pursue an issue for three months and then take it to the ombudsman. I am genuinely concerned about that point.
	One specific concern I have about the new national consumer council is that I understand that it will not have access to information on the nature of the complaints and issues raised with Consumer Direct. That may well curtail its ability to hold organisations, such as energy suppliers and other big organisations, fully to account on their consumer practices.
	I raised the question of Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? Who is guarding the guards? What happens if we are unhappy with the NCC? However, there is one organisation that has not featured much in the debatethe Office of Fair Trading, which is an important part of the consumer protection framework. I am experiencing declining confidence in some of the bodies that are out there to help me represent the interests of my constituents. I think, for example, of the parliamentary ombudsman. I do not know what has happened there, but I sense that the organisation is perhaps overrun with complaints because of the maladministration of things such as tax credits. Heavens knows, there are enough such complaints. Perhaps there might be a loss of will to take on the complaints of constituents following the debacle over pensions when the Government eventually dismissedalthough the decision has since been overturned by the courtsthe ombudsman's findings.
	There are also concerns about the way in which the Office of Fair Trading works. I noticed a recent report headlined Over-active OFT is going OTT in its hunt for scalps, and I note that the banking sector has expressed its concern about its regulation.  The Sunday Telegraph reports:
	Bank lending is regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) the Banking Ombudsman, the Banking Codes Standards Board and also the courts via individual credit agreements. The BBA
	the British Bankers Association
	believes the overlaps leave banks unsure which rules to follow.
	Last year, the OFT announced that it would drop between five and 10 of its current investigations under new criteria designed to reduce its work load. That followed criticism from the National Audit Office about the slow speed of investigations, the way cases are selected and a perceived lack of transparency. Against the backdrop, too, of the consumer concerns that are addressed in the Bill, I thought that the House and the Minister might like to know that the Trade and Industry Committee has decided to launch an inquiry into the OFT to see how effectively it is doing its job. It is a chance for the critics to put up or shut up and for the OFT to prove its case.

James Duddridge: I am sure that that inquiry will be gratefully received. Can my hon. Friend give me an indication of the time scale for evidence being given to that inquiry?

Peter Luff: We have not issued the press release yet, but it will go out very shortly and my announcement in the House may put some pressure on the Committee to make sure that it does. My guess is that we will look for evidence some time towards the end of April, with hearings probably in early May. We regard this area as an important part of consumer protection that has not received enough scrutiny recently. I hope that the House will welcome our decision to conduct the inquiry.
	I have spoken for quite long enough. This is an important Bill and I welcome the spirit of what it tries to do. My caveats and cautions are genuinely intended in the spirit of helpfulness. The House should embrace quite warmly the philosophy underlying the Bill, but there are important questions relating to the transition to the new environment and I hope that the Minister will be able to address those when he replies to the debate later.

Laura Moffatt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I hope to make a short contribution to what is widely seen as an excellent Bill that addresses many of the issues that face consumers. After several decades, this is our opportunity to do that. I know that the general public very much welcome what is happening.
	I shall concentrate on part 3, which amends the Estate Agents Act 1979. Members have said many times that buying a house is probably the most mystifying and expensive thing that most people will do. It is probably up on the Richter scale with getting divorced as the most stressful experience in most people's lives.  [ Interruption. ] I suspect that it probably leads to many divorces. In taking a particular interest in this part of the Bill, I have involved local estate agents from my constituency. Rather than just using estate agents as whipping boys, I felt that it was right and proper to use the expertise of established estate agents in my constituency who have worked in the field for many years. I hasten to add that I have not received many complaints about estate agents, but I have heard from other Members about people who have been used and abused by estate agents. Particularly in areas where prices are high and housing is sought after, it is incredibly important that estate agents do the job that they should do.
	That is why I invited a whole series of estate agents to come to the House of Commons. I thank them publicly for their work and for the time that they spent examining the Bill and looking at ways in which to make sure that it does the job that we expect it to do. I suspect that we were comfortable in each other's company because we all wallow around at the bottom of people's expectations of how people like us respond to the public. What I found most interesting about the estate agents was that they probably wanted the Bill to go further, because they are good estate agents and they want to drive out the rogue estate agents who give them a bad reputation.
	At timesI had to take on board what the estate agents were sayingthe public can behave quite badly as well. In fact, one estate agent said, Wouldn't it be a good idea if we all had criminal records checks? He went to a house to measure up and do a valuation and when school-end time came, the mother said, Do you mind just looking after those two while I skip to the school to collect my children? She left the estate agent in the house with two small children. He was fairly shocked by that behaviour. At times, the public need help when it comes to how to behave towards people they invite into their homes.
	I am deeply grateful to the Minister for Trade, who is steering the Bill through Parliament, for his help, advice and letters. He has responded to the queries that we had throughout our consultation process and clarified that all aspects of the work that estate agents do will be part of the Bill. That has been widely accepted and it makes people feel that this is a really good scheme.
	Having an accredited scheme is vital. The quality of the scheme is the most important issue. Members have said that we should perhaps increase the fines for estate agents, but compulsory professional indemnity insurance is a far more important issue. The heart of the Bill is redress. If somebody has been dealt a serious blow by a disreputable estate agent, they should get redress for that. It should not just be a fine, with money going into a black hole. People need to have a real sense that they are going to get some help if they have received bad treatment from an estate agent.
	The recording of transactions is vital. Anybody who has worked in the public sector, as I have in nursing, knows that recording a process is crucial when it comes to examining that process later to ensure that all has been done properly. I hope that estate agents will respond properly to that aspect of the Bill.
	Quality is essential. To jump to the defence of the DTI website, I thought that the published letters from the estate agent ombudsman and the response letters from the DTI were incredibly helpful in understanding that getting the schemes right is the first and foremost way in which we can get the Bill into the shape that will mean that it will do the job that we expect it to do. I was impressed to see that those who are interested in getting into a redress scheme are responding to all the issues raised by the DTI. It gives us some confidence to know that that work is going on, and going on in public.
	I want to clarify a couple of points. I know that the schemes are being examined, but could the Under-Secretary tell me how close we are to making sure that there are some decent schemes available and when he hopes to make an announcement about them?

Mark Prisk: The hon. Lady said that the estate agents whom she had consulted were keen to widen the scope of the Bill's amendments to the 1979 Act. Will she clarify whether she believesas I think that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) feltthat that should include lettings?

Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We did not discuss lettings. I was referring to the fact that the estate agents were worried that they were being invited into people's homes without having a criminal records check to protect them in those circumstances. The discussion was not related to lettings. I thank him for allowing me to clarify that.
	To conclude, the quality of the redress schemes is going to be the most important aspect of this part of the Bill. I know that there is a lot of work going on and I thank the estate agents in my constituency who were good enough to help me to understand the Bill and to ensure that we get the very best outcome. Good estate agents are sick and tired of the reputation that poor and rogue estate agents give to their profession. The good ones are responsible. They want to do a decent job and to make sure that people have a good experience when buying or selling a house. I know that the Bill will contribute to that enormously.

James Duddridge: We have heard passionate speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the consumer, consumer rights and a consumer voice, even if that terminology is being dropped. Although Ministers and Members in general are quite low in the league table of public opinion, with estate agents slightly above them, the debate will go some small way towards encouraging us up the league tablehopefully faster than estate agents.
	In the private sector, I once had the privilege of working with a civil service permanent secretary, who said, If you've got a problem, don't try to reorganise itsort it out. While I am broadly supportive of the Bill, I am worried that the Government are trying to reorganise. I am especially worried about Postwatch and postal services. Postal services are a big issue in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) talked about a possible growth in Members' postbags, but my postbag is quite large already, perhaps in no small part because of the survey of sub-post offices that I carried out. The survey showed that 86 per cent. were worried about the removal of the Post Office card account, while more than 71 per cent. said that they would lose staff. Several hon. Members mentioned that 2,500 post offices are likely to close, and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) said that it is likely that there will be an additional series of voluntary closures. There will thus be a massive change in the postal arena at a time of massive regulatory change.
	The Minister for Trade said that working across sectors would be beneficial, but I am deeply concerned that we will see the loss of a single voice for, and a single expert on, energy, water and postal services. There has been talk of removing the chief inspector of prisons, which was blocked only because of a debate in the other place. I am worried that we are removing strong and passionate voices for the sectors that I cited.
	Not all voices need to come from the Government. People do not go to watchdogs such as Postwatch; they are much more likely to go to the television programme Watchdog, or Which? I have noticed that correspondence that I receive on which Which? or Watchdog have been copied in is more likely to receive a fast response than a letter copied to one of the official Government regulators, so such bodies carry more weight in many ways.
	Let me turn to estate agents. We have debated whether the Bill should be extended to letting agents. From reading the popular papers, I am conscious that there is, especially at the upper end of the marketplace, an increasing grey market involving properties that never get to estate agents and private dealers I hope that the Minister will go into more detail in Committee about whether the Bill would cover that market. We also need to consider estate agency on the internet, especially when the transaction is not necessarily financial. Organisations such as gumtree.com offer free publicity to properties for sale. Would such organisations by captured by the Bill?
	I commend the Government for extending legislation on door-to-door selling and cooling-off periods to circumstances in which appointments have been made. Elderly members of my family have been duped into buying a vacuum cleaner for more than 1,000, although it probably would have cost 40. The sale took place by appointment in response to a newspaper advertisement. People who are vulnerable, lonely and on their own are being taken advantage of.
	I was horrified when the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), who is no longer in the Chamber, said something along the lines of, This is a useful vehicle for legislation that we need to take advantage of. I would prefer the remit of the legislation to be set out clearly in the Bill. I will want to probe Ministers in Committee to get more clarity. If there is an expansion of the remit beyond water, be that to financial services or another sector, we will need to understand how organisations will be able to interact with this place to ensure that we have a strong voice, rather than extra regulation that is a burden on those who are already doing a good job.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) talked about the publication of reports. I am flabbergasted that reports might not be published. Why on earth would the Government not consider publishing all reports on the website? Such reports will be paid for by the general public. It will be for the general public to decide whether they are of any relevance, not an organisation or, heaven forbid, Ministers. In Committee, or when the Under-Secretary replies, I hope that we will hear a commitment that all reports will be published on the website.

Robert Smith: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge). Perhaps the reason why the Government do not want all reports to be published is because they might find that a number of them would not be too helpful to their attempts to tackle some issues. They might thus not want the wide dissemination of advice that they receive.
	Given that energy has featured extensively in the debate, I should declare my interest in the oil and gas industry, which is in the Register of Members' Interests. My interest relates mainly to the upstream and supply side of the industry, but that obviously has an effect on the energy consumer in the end.
	I have two concerns that have arisen from our debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed the view that the general principle of bringing together seamlessly the consumer voice and the consumer council and getting consumer advice out across sectors is attractive. When there is all-party agreement on the direction in which the Government are going, it must be frustrating for them to find that there is much concern and criticism about the details of the Bill. However, when there is agreement on a general direction, the purpose of a debate must be to flush out remaining concerns so that we can build on the position. I hope that the Government are still willing to build, given that they adopted a sensible approach in the House of Lords by taking on board issues that were raised.
	I want to reinforce the concern that has been expressed about Postwatch. The Government have said that Postwatch has a role to play in the programme of post office closures that they are bringing about. I suppose that there is a chance that, when the Government respond to the consultation, they might decide to go for fewer closures, but, at the moment, they are minded to make 2,500 funded closures. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) said, that is only the number of funded closures, rather than a limit on the number of closures. If the Post Office believes that it can deliver a service along the guidelines suggested by the Government with even fewer post offices, there will be no limit on the number of unfunded closures. The role of Postwatch is thus vital.
	As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) said, the way in which the expertise of Postwatch will be kept will be determined by how the Government handle the merger of the bodies. Alternatively, the merger of Postwatch could be delayed until after this round of closures so that the body could, with its expertise and skills, have an input into the process. People have been worried about Postwatch's role, but the body has built up expertise. People's worries about taking individual constituency casework to Postwatch might be due to the fact that there is little ability to get redress from Royal Mail on concerns about mail delivery. That is one of the areas in which the regulator will need to ensure that redress schemes are effective and can actually deliver something. Royal Mail is moving in the direction of giving more redress for failures on the delivery side of its operations. An advocate for consumers can go only as far as is determined by the legal obligation on a supplier.
	Postwatch's expertise needs to be protected during the closure programme because it is vital that we understand the impact of that programme. As many hon. Members have said, constituents have raised real concerns with us about the loss of services from their post offices. When it comes to rural closures, the consumer voice will need to be put even more strongly. There is a great danger of the Post Office producing a simple model that assumes that the closure of post office A will result in a customer simply going to the next-door post officepost office B. However, the geography of rural communities is such that people might well go to a post office in a larger settlement, which would mean that post office B would not pick up the extra custom. A lot of scrutiny will be needed when the closure programme comes forward and Postwatch has the expertise and skills to play a part in that.
	I pay tribute to the role that Energywatch has played over the years in flagging up genuine failures in the market that have resulted in consumers not getting a good deal. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire talked about the importance of markets delivering good-quality consumer products. The energy markets are new, so they are finding their feet and evolving, and new skills are needed to understand how they work. When I have taken cases to Energywatch, suppliers have tended to act faster than they would have had they been dealing directly with the consumer. That is partly because of the role played by Energywatch in building up a pattern: suppliers noticed that if they did not deal well with emerging problems that Energywatch brought to their attention, they risked Energywatch taking the matter further through the media and taking it up with Ofgem.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) both expressed concern about prices not decreasing as fast as they rose. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire made the point that suppliers had bought forward in the market and that, in a sense, consumers had some protection on the way up, but there would now be some delay on the way down. However, in the absence of monitoring, there is a danger that laziness will creep in with respect to passing on the full benefits of the market to the consumer. The consumer advocacy that Energywatch has taken up is therefore extremely important.
	Clause 13 makes it clear that the new NCC will have to take up advocacy on behalf of people with disconnection problems, but, as has been pointed out, clause 12 might need to be beefed up. How are consumers who are in need and have difficulties but are not getting help from the NCC to be dealt with if there is a conflict arising from clause 12 between the availability of advocacy and the aspirations of the consumer who needs advocacy? Disconnection is not the only major problem relating to energy supply. Massive bills and the confusion that has crept in over the years about how billing is handled and its quality mean that a person who has to wait three months for their problem to be solved before they go to the ombudsman for redress is under considerable stress. Energywatch has shown how the process can be accelerated; we do not want to lose that expertise.
	It is extremely important that, during the passage of the Bill, the Government reassure us that the skills of Energywatch will not be lost, that individual advocacy will be strengthened and that the consumer will not lose out. Although markets generally deliver benefits for consumers, in complex areas, consumersespecially the more vulnerableneed detailed support and advice. I hope to hear that Ministers are willing to be flexible on that issue.

Brian Binley: I recognise that the Bill is non-contentious, as the debate proves, so I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible. However, I have a duty to my constituents who have raised certain matters with me, and I wish to relay some of their concerns to the Ministers, even though several have been discussed in some depth already.
	Like many hon. Members who have spoken during the debate, I welcome the general thrust of the Bill. I understand the Government's wish to cut bureaucracy and cost, and my guess is that we will hear more about that drive in a couple of days' time. Equally, I understand and welcome the Government's wish to strengthen consumer representation. However, I would not want the former to detract from the latter. It seems to me that there is a real need to enhance consumer representation, as the Government believe the Bill will, but I am not sure that that can be done cheaply. In fact, one of the weaknesses of the Bill as it stands is that sufficient effort might not be put into ensuring that consumer representation is as effective and as efficient as it could be.
	There is a need to ensure that rogue companies are properly dealt with while not placing too much additional regulation on good companies, particularly in the field of estate agency. I know from my constituents that there are serious problems with certain practices in estate agency, and they would want me to mention those problems to Ministers. I had hoped to spend a little time so doing, but suffice it to say that although there is a need to instil greater responsibility in estate agents, there is an equal need to acknowledge that additional regulation might not be the way to proceed in relation to the great majority of estate agents, who act responsibly. I would therefore like an assurance from the Minister that further discussions will be undertaken with the professional bodies, which are willing to help the Government to achieve their objective.
	On redress for individual citizens, Help the Aged believes that it is essential that either Consumer Direct or the new national consumer council is given a mandate and resources to handle disputes for consumers who are vulnerable or who have a complex case. The Bill clearly provides the opportunity for consumers to go to the ombudsman, but only after the company in question has had three months to settle the problems. In my experience, however, when one mentions the word ombudsman, people sometimes become frightened: they feel that going to the ombudsman is a pretty heavy judicial process, and they have been warned not to get involved with the law because it is an expensive business. I realise that that is not necessarily true in relation to the ombudsman, but the general feeling pertains. We have to be careful about thinking that ombudsmen can solve all our problems. It seems to me that there is an opportunity to talk with the businesses involvedwith the other side, so to speakand to come up with a disputes conciliation body that can deal with such cases in a less official and less legal way than ombudsmen might do.
	I wish to discuss how the Bill may affect businesses, with particular reference to mail volumes and to Energywatch. As we have heard, businesses account for 86 per cent. of mail volumes. Energywatch responded to 20,928 inquiries and handled 8,162 complaints from business customers last year2005-06so businesses account for a large part of its work. The DTI is considering consulting small businesses to see whether they should be covered by the ombudsman scheme. I hope that they will be, because small businesses in particular find dealing with disputes and complaints expensive; it takes focus away from the running of the business; and small businesses do not have the support that larger companies have. I hope that the Minister will consider not only how to involve small businesses in the scheme, but how great a cost burden that would impose on them and how to alleviate that burden. We already place many burdens on small businesses out of proportion to the cost to UK plc; I do not want those burdens to be added to dramatically, even though I want small businesses to be included in the scope of the Bill.
	I shall not talk about post offices, although there is a problem in that respect. I shall simply conclude my remarks by referring to letting agencies. I do not know whether the Ministers share my experience, but I know from my own surgeries that there are a lot of complaints about letting and I have to deal with many difficult problems. I fear that if activities relating to letting are not included in the regulation of estate agents, we shall be missing out a large chunk of their business. Judging by the nods I see from Ministers, I am hopeful that they will respond favourably on that matter.

Mark Prisk: Today's debate is best described as short but surprisingly insightful; in that respect, it reminds me of the Minister for Trade. We have heard a number of contributions from Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) not only tested our ability to name his constituency but highlighted some of his concerns about the way in which the jigsaw will be put together. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) spoke of a common purpose. I confess that I was a little confused to hear her first suggest that more organisations should be involved in the Bill, and then ask why Postwatch and Energywatch were included. However, she went on to reiterate our concerns about the need to modernise the Estate Agents Act 1979.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), who is sadly not in the Chamber at the moment [Interruption.] I beg his pardon for having missed him; he has moved from left to right, which is always a welcome direction. He highlighted the need for the Minister to reconsider the issue of positive licensing, and he rightly discussed whether residential lettings should come within the scope of the legislation. We then heard an excellent and comprehensive contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is of course the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. He put us all in our place, perhaps teasingly, by reminding us just how much we are trusted by the publicabout as much as estate agents and journalists. He stressed that the debate should be about practice, not principle, and he raised a number of particularly good points about the remit, and the cost and quality of services, including railway services. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) will respond to those points.
	We then heard a contribution from the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who has consulted her local estate agents; I noticed that they would like the Government to go further in part 3. An excellent, albeit concise, contribution was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge). He rightly concentrated not on mechanisms, but on the point of view of individual consumers, and the effect that complaints and difficulties of the kind that we have discussed often have on them, particularly those in vulnerable communities. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith)there have been a range of interesting Scottish constituency names tonightrightly highlighted the current post office closures. He also mentioned the confusion in the energy market about billing, and about whether the market is operating effectively.
	Last but by no means least, we heard the excellent contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley). He raised several important points on behalf of his constituents, but he also raised concerns on behalf of small businesses, and he was absolutely right to do so. If I may say so without embarrassing him, he has experience in that field, and speaks with a passion on the subject, and I always find it enlightening to listen to his contribution. I am grateful to him and other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.
	At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) confirmed that although we have reservations about the Bill, we endorse the Government's aims and many of the measures in the legislation. As the Minister of State mentioned, pressure sales tactics are still catching people out. As a result, it is becoming increasingly clear that people need the same rights in respect of cancelling contracts that result from solicited sales visits as those that they have in relation to unsolicited visits. The current distinction is being exploited by the unscrupulous. Although I always begin from the principle of caveat emptorbuyer bewarein this instance, the evidence justifies a change in the law.
	We have significant reservations about certain aspects of the Bill and about how the legislation will work in practice. As the debate has shown, there are concerns about the planned merger of watchdogs, the future handling of complaints, and how transparent and effective the new regime may prove to be in practice. There is a strong sense that the Bill is a missed opportunity, to use the words of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, especially in relation to the regulation of estate agents. I shall address that point further in due course.
	As hon. Members have said, the first part of the Bill seeks to merge Energywatch, Postwatch and, in time, the Consumer Council for Water, into a new statutory national consumer council. The Minister of State told us at the beginning of the debate that the Government's purpose is to streamline and strengthen consumer advocacya perfectly reasonable aimbut the Government have yet to prove that the new arrangement will strengthen the voice of the consumer. It could well do so, if the merger is implemented effectively and efficiently, but sadly the Government have a pretty dreadful record on merging public bodies. For example, on health care, in my county alone, the Government have merged and remerged strategic health authorities three times in five years, wasting tens of millions of pounds.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East said, sometimes we have to fix the problem, not simply rearrange the deckchairs. Given that, and given the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, the Under-Secretary needs to show us, both here and in Committee, that sector-specific skills and experience in postal, energy and water services will not be lost in any merger, or during any transition. In particular, in view of the cuts that the Government are forcing on to the post office network, we will seek a cast-iron guarantee that the abolition of Postwatch will not mean a diminution of public representation at this crucial time. As the Under-Secretary is directly and personally responsible for Royal Mail, his reply to that point needs to be clear and unequivocal.
	Prior to this debate, serious concern was expressed by the water industry about the inclusion of the Consumer Council for Water in the new organisation, a move that many think premature. Indeed, several Members have echoed that concern today, not least because of the impending price review for water companies. We are encouraged to hear that the Minister of State recognises the problem and is considering constructive proposals for adjusting the merger timetable. We are happy to engage in open and positive debate on whether that should be achieved by bringing forward the price review, or by pushing the merger back, and we approach the subject with an open mind. There has certainly been no collusion, contrary to what the hon. Member for Richmond Park might assume. The reality is that we try to take a positive approach and to have an open mind on the subject.
	On part 2 of the Bill, which concerns redress schemes, I should first say that we were pleased that the Government accepted amendments from Conservative peers in the other place. The amendments have improved the legislation; for example, complaints by gas consumers will now be investigated prior to any disconnection of supply, and not afterwards, as is the case at present. That change will resolve a long-standing grievance of many consumers. We want that constructive approach to the Bill to continue in the Commons.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton pointed out that there is a clear need to improve companies' internal complaints handling. As he said, the Government's wish to improve redress schemes should be matched by good internal complaints procedures. World-class businesses already ensure that, because they recognise the benefit for them and their customers. In the other place, the Government were willing to make only a small concession on that point, in clause 49; yet as we have heard today, there is a good case for effective complaint handling to be a pre-requisite of redress scheme membership. I hope that the Under-Secretary is prepared to reconsider the issue, both in his reply and in Committee.
	Today's debate highlighted an important concern about the relationship between the National Consumer Council and Whitehall. The existing council has, to date, enjoyed an arm's length relationship with the Government, and that has enabled it to develop a reputation for objectivity and a certain independent authority. That detached position is vital if consumer representation is to remain effective within Whitehall. The arrangement set out in the Bill may reduce that independence. Members on both sides of the House raised questions about the new financial arrangements and the lack of transparency in the NCC's proposed research and advocacy functions. If a new, larger council is to retain its objectivity, it is essential that it remain, and is seen to remain, detached from undue ministerial influence. I therefore urge the Under-Secretary to address that issue directly in his reply, and to set out clearly the nature of the proposed relationship, particularly between the Secretary of State and the new council.
	In his opening speech, the Minister of State spoke about the need to crack down on rogue estate agents. Sadlyand this does not bring me any comfort the truth is that the Government have failed to match their rhetoric with action. While we welcome the measures to require estate agents to belong to an approved redress scheme, as well as the minor increase in powers for the Office of Fair Trading, that is as far as the Government are prepared to go. For many people, including the public and estate agents, those changes are inadequate. While most agents are competent and professional, a notable minority have been able to trade in an unacceptable manner. Sometimes it is a question of ethics, but sometimes it is a question of competence. For example, a  Which? magazine investigation in 2005 showed that estate agency valuations may vary wildly, sometimes by up to 125,000. On some occasions, agents deliberately withheld or misrepresented offers. As a result, according to the Consumers Association, 70 per cent. of people think estate agents frequently give misleading information about properties.
	Part of the legislative problem is that the original law dates back over 28 years. The Government's amendments to the Estate Agents Act 1979 merely tinker at the edges, and an overhaul is needed. We are therefore calling for the 1979 Act to be modernised by the Bill, and for a significant increase in the maximum fine to deter rogue agents. First, the definition of estate agency work must be extended. It should include recent trends such as off-plan sales and direct sales by house builders, which were rare in 1979 but are now commonplace, and are not covered by the law. Secondly, residential lettings must be incorporated into the regulations. Estate agencies, as we have heard, handle millions of such lettings and, according to the National Association of Estate Agents, problems with lettings are one of the main sources of complaints made against its members and against agents generally. As the Bill stands, that activity would not be covered, to the bemusement of millions of our constituents. At the beginning of the debate, the Minister of State spoke about a committee and a review, but he did not give a commitment to legislate. We shall therefore seek to press amendments to correct that omission, and I hope that we can work on a cross-party basis to improve the legislation. Those changes and the increase in fines will help home buyers, and assist the industry in cleaning up its act. Given that it is 28 years since the last piece of legislation in this area, I hope that we will not have to wait a similar period before we introduce new laws. However, I want to work with the Ministers to make sure that we achieve a positive outcome.
	There are many provisions in the Bill that will indeed help consumers in the utilities and residential property markets. While the Opposition have concerns about the practicalities, we have a long-standing commitment to the principle of informed consumer choice and effective advocacy, so we wish to improve the Bill, not to damage it. The Ministers enjoy the rough and tumble of party political banter, and so do I, but sometimes it is a distraction. All too often, it is used as an excuse for pushing legislation through the House unimproved. On this occasion, Members on both sides of the House have a genuine opportunity to scrutinise, amend and improve the Bill so that it will have a lasting impact on millions of consumers and house buyers. That collaborative approach will not please the press, who always love a row, but if Ministers are prepared to consider amendments on their merits, we are prepared to engage in proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill, which will not only be good for consumers, but will reflect well on the House.

Jim Fitzpatrick: We have had a wide-ranging, useful debate, and I have listened with great interest to contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I am grateful to them, and I will do my best to respond, although we will have the opportunity to examine many of the issues that were raised more thoroughly in Committee.
	I welcome the tone of the debate, as almost all the contributions were supportive and were designed to clarify certain points or suggest improvements to the Bill. I hope that I can clarify some of the matters that were raised, and I am confident that we can improve the Bill even further in Committeea point just made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), to whom I am grateful. I do not intend to repeat the eloquent and comprehensive reasoning for the Bill's introduction articulated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who opened the debate, but I will try to address the matters raised by right hon. and hon. Members.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who chairs the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) asked about the name of the new body, which is a fundamental issue. The Bill provides for the new body to be given the formal statutory title of National Consumer Council. The phrase Consumer Voice has been used to describe the overall arrangements, including the new national consumer council, the new redress schemes and the generic powers enabling regulators to prescribe complaint-handling standards. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire asked about redress schemes, which were also raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer). He asked whether a postal services redress scheme would be introduced. The current energy redress scheme is not statutory, and covers only 80 per cent. of complaints. The new statutory energy redress scheme should cover the full range of complaints, so it will be an improvement. A new postal redress scheme will be set up, and we expect that to happen within 12 months of Royal Assent.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton asked about the retention of sectoral expertisea matter raised by several right hon. and hon. Members. I shall come on to that issue. However, it is our objective to retain sectoral expertise as part of the implementation programme involving the consumer bodies themselves. The Bill provides a specific function for the new council to investigate post office closures in clause 16. That function, currently given to Postwatch, will be preserved in the transition to the new body. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was a cost-cutting exercise but, as he will know, the Government are not saving any money as a result of the arrangements. The savings will be enjoyed by the energy and postal services industries and, ultimately, the consumer.

Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Fitzpatrick: Yes, but the House is keen to proceed to other urgent business, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to be brief.

Robert Smith: The Minister discussed the transition from Postwatch to the new body. What timetable does he envisage for that transfer? Unless he has good news for us, the closure programme proposed by the Government will soon take place.

Jim Fitzpatrick: We will discuss the detail in Committee, but obviously, we want to deal with that as expeditiously as possible.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton asked whether penalty charges should be higher. In the other place, the Government accepted an amendment to double the maximum penalty charge from 500 to 1,000 in response to concerns about the level of the charge. A penalty charge is an on-the-spot fine without any opportunity for estate agents to put their case to an independent adjudicator, so a high penalty charge would not be fair. Ultimately, estate agents can lose their livelihood if they are banned by the OFT for not belonging to a redress scheme. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Bill covered letting agents, as did other right hon. and hon. Members. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State explained, the evidence base for the Bill's provisions is the 2004 OFT report on the estate agency market. Estate agents are governed primarily by the Estate Agents Act 1979, which does not cover letting agents. The Bill amends that Act, so its provisions do not apply to letting agents. The tenancy deposit schemes due to be introduced in April 2007 under the Housing Act 2004 will offer greater protection to people who are at unfair risk of losing their depositsone of the main sources of consumer detriment in the lettings marketbut I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, that amendments may well be tabled in Committee. We look forward to debating them.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, who led for the Opposition, expressed concern about the publication of reports, a point also raised by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). Although we envisage that the Secretary of State will generally wish to publish a report requested by him from the new NCC, the discretion given by clause 18 not to publish is necessary to deal with particular circumstances, such as when the report contains information that is commercially confidential or price-sensitive. Such information might be necessary to support the recommendations in the report.
	A requirement for the Secretary of State to publish every report requested by him might have a deterrent effect on external experts, industry or other stakeholders, who might be reluctant to provide information or advice because it might be disclosed. That could inhibit the provision of useful or important information to aid the preparation of the report by the new NCC, to the detriment of the quality of the final report and the subsequent advice provided by the Secretary of State. I hope that that deals with the sceptical comment by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said that regulators should have a duty to prescribe complaint-handling standards. The position that we have adopted is to give regulators the power to make regulations to prescribe complaint-handling standards that would be binding on regulated providers. We took this approach because we believe that sectoral regulators are best placed to take a view on what is appropriate and necessary within their own sectors. The matter was raised in the other place, and we recognise that this is an important issue. No doubt we will return to it in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) asked about the unfair commercial practices directive and whether that would catch sales tactics where the trader does not mention prices. To clarify my right hon. Friend the Minister of State's earlier point, the unfair commercial practices directive will introduce a general duty for a trader not to treat the consumer unfairly. It will also ban outright certain types of unfair commercial practice, such as aggressive doorstep selling.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park raised a similar point when she asked whether the Government would use the measure to tackle companies that charge consumers more if they do not use direct debits. The terms in the contract with the consumer that allow the charge to be imposed could be assessed for fairness under the consumer regulations imposed by the Office of Fair Trading, so it is not necessary for the unfair commercial practices directive to require that.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) asked about the NCC, and about the fact that it did not have a specific function to look at overpricing in energy and water. The new NCC will be able to examine any market in which it identifies significant consumer detriment. That might include prices in the energy or water sector, although the new NCC must recognise the existence of other consumer bodies, such as the Consumer Council for Water, when exercising its function.
	My right hon. Friend also asked about complaints that might in future be split between the new national consumer council and Consumer Direct. The first port of call will be Consumer Direct, which can refer consumers to the supplier, or to the redress scheme if the supplier has not resolved the problem to the satisfaction of the consumer. The redress scheme will be able to resolve a complaint and award compensation, where warranted. Energywatch does not have powers to do that.
	The new NCC will be able to support vulnerable consumers through the processa question raised by the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and for Mid-Worcestershire. The understanding of what constitutes vulnerability is developing all the time and will no doubt become better informed in future. The Bill therefore leaves it to the new council to assist those whom it judges to be unable to progress complaints by themselves. In those circumstances, it would not be sensible to make it a duty.

Robert Smith: As a secondary point, what happens if there is a dispute between the consumer and the council about whether the consumer is vulnerable? Is there any means of adjudicating, or does the council have absolute power to reject someone, with no possibility of appeal?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair and sensible point. If he will allow us, we will deal with it in detail in Committee, to give him the clarity and reassurance that he, quite reasonably, seeks.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked why Ofcom and financial services consumer panels were not included. The consultation in early 2006 in respect of Ofcom and financial services asked for views on the inclusion of the financial services consumer panel and the Ofcom consumer panel in the new arrangements. The majority of responses to the consultation agreed that the role of those panels was different from those of statutory consumer bodies, as they were primarily regulator-facing and designed to advise the regulator on the consumer interest in developing policy, with no direct consumer-facing role or role in handling complaints. Both roles, however, were considered to be important, and both will be retained under the new arrangements.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire asked whether the new body would be located in Londonanother fair question. It is an implementation matter that we are considering, with the benefit of input from Energywatch, Postwatch and the National Consumer Council. The decision where the new body will be located will take into account such issues as the cost of the existing property portfolio and concerns surrounding the retention of staff. I acknowledge the importance of the matter.

Peter Luff: When does the Minister expect to reach that decision?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I cannot gaze into a crystal ball and give the hon. Gentleman a date for that at present. I apologise; I recognise that it is an important point.
	The question of regional representation by the new NCC was raised. The Bill allows for the new NCC to establish regional committees, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, where it believes that that would be beneficial to consumers.
	The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) asked us to be clear about the inclusion of other sectors. The Bill covers the energy sector and the postal services sector, and allows for the inclusion of the water sector after consultation. The inclusion of any other sectoral consumer bodies in future would require further consultation and legislation.
	The hon. Lady asked whether small firms would be represented by the new consumer advocacy body. We propose that the remit of the new NCC will be to represent all consumers, including business consumers. It will be left to the new NCC to determine where and on whom the greatest detriment in each market falls, and therefore on which issues to concentrate its resources. She also asked about redress schemes and the fact that they would consider complaints only after three months. The question was raised also by the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee. The terms of each redress scheme, including the time given to companies to resolve complaints before the complaint can be dealt with by the scheme must be approved by the sectoral regulator. Deadlock letters can be issued by companies before three months are up. The current practice of existing schemes is to deal with emergency cases without allowing companies the three months.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked about the council stepping in if redress schemes were not effective. If I wished to emulate a classic Yes Minister response, I might say that this is a clear opportunity for the new council to advance the consumer experience by monitoring the effectiveness of redress schemes, but I hope the hon. Lady will be reassured that we expect that to be the case.
	The hon. Lady and other right hon. and hon. Members also asked about positive licensing. The OFT report on the estate agency market in England and Wales specifically addressed the question whether positive licensing, which could include a fitness test and training or competence requirements, would improve regulation and the estate agency market, and rejected it. The OFT concluded that positive licensing would raise costs and inhibit competition, without delivering the benefits to justify that. However, the OFT found that in the majority of cases in which it took action against an estate agent, the root cause was a lack of integrity and honesty, not a lack of knowledge of the law.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire expressed concerns about the DTI's website. I have acknowledged that there are problems, which we will deal with. He also raised questions about post office performance and closures, an issue raised by other right hon. and hon. Members. The Bill gives a role to the new NCC to look into post office network restructuring. This replicates the power currently given to Postwatch. The new NCC cross-sectoral body will also be able to bring expertise from other sectors. The hon. Gentleman requested that the new NCC will not have access to information from Consumer Direct. I can reassure him that information about consumer complaints will be a useful source of information on consumer detriment for the new NCC. It is envisaged that the new NCC will establish effective information flows from Consumer Direct and the redress schemes.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) asked about the Government's continuing discussions with professional bodies. I can assure him that that will indeed continue.
	The response of the consumer watchdog community to the Bill is summed up by this quote from the editor of  Property Week, Giles Barrie, who says:
	At last, the Government has acknowledged the damage rogue estates can do to people's lives, which we have highlighted in our campaign. Good agents have nothing to fear but the bad apples now need to clean up their act fast.
	Charles Smailes, president of the National Association of Estate Agents, says:
	This is clearly a step in the right direction.
	Lord Whitty, chairman of the National Consumer Council, says:
	This is good news for consumers.
	Professor Ed Gallacher, the chair of Energywatch, says:
	We are pleased that we now have a clear set of proposals showing a way forward for consumers.
	The head of campaigns for  Which?, Louise Hanson, says:
	We broadly welcome the move and particularly the ability of consumers to access redress when things go wrong.
	The OFT says:
	Extending protection in this way means consumers shopping from home can be confident they are protected from unscrupulous doorstep sellers.
	Citizens Advice says:
	We are very pleased that at long last cooling off rights are to be extended to all purchases made at home.
	It occurred to me, perhaps uncharacteristically, to make a tiny partisan point. The report by the economic competitiveness policy group established by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) suggested abolishing consumer protection for mortgages, pensions, insurance and credit cards, saying:
	In financial services we should allow people to buy and sell products that are not regulated if they have signed to do so.
	I look forward to seeing that in the next manifesto.
	In summary, the Bill embodies the Government's commitment to a robust and effective consumer regime that is fair to consumers as well as to business. It creates a new national consumer councila powerful advocate for consumersdemonstrates our commitment to get rid of rogue estate agents and doorstep traders and gives consumers the rights and redress they deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

CONSUMERS, ESTATE AGENTS AND REDRESS BILL [ LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [ Lords]
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	 Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 26th April 2007.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. [Kevin Brennan.]
	 Question agreed to.

CONSUMERS, ESTATE AGENTS AND REDRESS BILL [ LORDS]  [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [ Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(1) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act, and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act. [Kevin Brennan.]
	 Question agreed to.

CONSUMERS, ESTATE AGENTS AND REDRESS BILL [ LORDS]  [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and eans resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [ Lords], it is expedient to authorise
	(1) the inclusion in
	(a) licences under the Gas Act 1986, the Electricity Act 1989, the Postal Services Act 2000 or the Water Industry Act 1991, and
	(b) appointments made under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991,
	of conditions requiring the payment of increased amounts payable into the Consolidated Fund, and
	(2) the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions relating to transfer schemes. [Kevin Brennan.]
	 Question agreed to.

UK Borders Bill

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the UK Borders Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees. [Mr. Liam Byrne.]

David Heath: I do not wish to detain the House long, and certainly not for the 45 minutes allotted for this debate. Having said that, I am a little surprised that the Minister moved the motion formally without any explanation of why the Government have introduced an additional Ways and Means motion for this Bill.

Alan Beith: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the 45 minutes that is allowed for this debate, he might reflect on the fact that that is 45 minutes more than will be allowed for the regulations that appear later on the Order Paper and will be voted through on the nod.

David Heath: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The most extraordinary thing about the procedure this evening is that it does not allow for debate on a matter that Members on both sides of the argument wish to debate on the Floor of the House. However, I would be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were I to continue that strain of argument.
	I find it extraordinary that yet again the Government are making proposals that were not included in the original Bill and were not therefore the subject of a Ways and Means resolution on Second Reading. As I understand the Government's new clause, which is yet to be debated in Committee and has not been introduced at the appropriate stage in the Committee's proceedings, the intention is to allow the Government to introduce fees and charges for those who are seeking to emigrate to this country that are beyond full cost recovery, in the certain knowledge that people are in no position to argue with the imposition of such fees and charges.
	It would be wrong to debate the substance of the new clause this eveningthat will have to be done in Committeebut it is not proper for this House, which prides itself on its ability to scrutinise when given the opportunity to do so, to allow to pass without any comment whatsoever a Ways and Means resolution that allows the Government, yet again, to ride roughshod over the House's ability to scrutinise its business properly. The new clause should have been introduced in the original Bill, but it was not. The Minister gave no explanation and simply put the motion before the House formally. That is no more a proper way of doing business than is the way in which we will consider the later piece of business. The least that the Minister can do is to explain why we have this motion before us tonight.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful for the chance to respond to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The powers contained in the new clause are not especially radical. We have the power to cost-chargethat is in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. Neither is the power to over-cost charge especially new, because we have that in section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. We are trying to bring to bear a degree of flexibility and intelligence in how charges are set. That principle was widely welcomed in the statutory instrument debate that we had last week. This motion will allow us to ensure that there is a full and proper debate in Committee on the new clauses that we propose in advance of Report and Third Reading. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), who is representing the Liberal Democrats on that Committee, will forensically interrogate our proposals. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you had a request from a Minister to explain the extreme and unseemly haste with which the sexual orientation regulations have appeared on the Order Paper tonight? Have you received a request to explain the almost unprecedented shortness of time between laying the regulations on 12 March and their being in Committee on 15 March, with members of the Committee appointed with less than 24 hours to consider their merits? The Lords Merits Committee advertised a seven-day consultation period, and then sat on the sixth day, thereby cutting out some of the representations that would have been made. Given that there was no sitting on Friday, the regulations have appeared on the Order Paper within two days of consideration. Have you received any requests?

Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Over the weekend, several constituents raised concerns about the impact of the details of the regulations. I have not yet had time to explore with Ministers their precise consequences because of the unseemly haste to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred. What channels are open to me before we vote on the regulations in a few minutes to explore the precise consequences with Ministers? Could not a Minister have come before the House and made a statement to enable hon. Members to scrutinise the regulations rather better?

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have too many points of order as a surrogate for a debate on the matter. Let me try to deal with the points that have been raised.
	The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asked whether I had received any representations or requests. The answer is no. In answer to the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), the Chair has no power to determine what is on the Order Paper. I can only preside over what has been included in it. I understand that all is procedurally correct and we must proceed on that basis.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I entirely accept what you say, as does every hon. Member, but, because the procedures are so unfortunate, will you ask Mr. Speaker to ask the Procedure Committee to examine the manner in which the House deals with such matters in future?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has great experience in the House. He knows that it is perfectly in order for him to write directly to the Procedure Committee if he wants a generic point to be considered.

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I suspect you know, the matter was raised at business questions on Thursday. A clear request was made to the Leader of the House for the regulations not to go through until the House had had an opportunity to debate the subject, at least on the Easter Adjournment. Given that the regulations will be railroaded through this evening, will you be kind enough to ask Mr. Speaker to ensure that time is made available on the Easter Adjournment to debate the matter, notwithstanding the fact that the regulations will have gone through?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that Mr. Speaker will have observed the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you convey any remarks to the Speaker, perhaps you will also tell him that, in Committee, the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) revealedI was therethat Government Front Benchers had offered more time but that Tory Front Benchers had refused to take it. The Tory Front-Bench spokesman voted with us and the Tories split two ways. Three voted with us, including the Tory Front Bencher, and two voted against. The idea that the matter has not been dealt with is farcical.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the House is interested, but that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a Member who supports the regulations, as do most Liberal Democrats, we nevertheless share the concern about the way in which the matter has been rushed through. Given that the details have never been debated in primary legislation and require discussion by many hon. Members who have different views, can the House decide noweven though I generally disagree with Conservative Members and agree with the Government on the matterto provide debating time, or is there no way in which we can do that at this late stage?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no further scope for debate at this point. The procedures of the House have been followed correctly. Even if some hon. Members are unhappy about what has happened, nothing incorrect has taken place and we should now proceed to deal with the business on the Order Paper.

Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a new point of order because I have dealt with the previous one.

Julian Brazier: Yes, it is. My understanding is that motion 10, about which the previous points of order were made, applies to England, Wales and Scotland, but not to Northern Ireland, which has separate regulations. However, it covers some mattersfor example, adoptionwhich are devolved to Scotland. My Adjournment debate on the subject showed that, when the matter was considered in Scotland, the Scottish Government gave assurances that negotiations would be held between the Scottish Executive and the Government here. No report has been given to the House about the outcome of those negotiations, yet we are expected to vote tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has got it exactly. That is the case.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No Back Bencher has been able to make a speech about motion 10. Is it correct that the Government do not necessarily have to move it tonight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a question that the Chair can determine. The motion is on the Order Paper and I must assume that it is likely to be moved.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As one who supports the regulations, I would be delighted if the debate on the matter had taken place on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee, not least because it would help us win the next general election. However, can you confirm that, although Standing Order No. 118 states that it is a for a Minister to decide whether the debate is held on the Floor of the House or in Committee, the practice and convention of the House is that, if Opposition Front Benchers had called for it to be held on the Floor of the House, it would have been?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no means of knowing that; it is nothing on which I can rule.

Alan Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that you expected motion 10 to be moved. Is not it the case that a Minister could choose not to move it tonight, but take account of what has been said in the Chamber and make a statement tomorrow, which would enable questions on the matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall simply have to wait and see.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on motions 6, 7, 8 and 9.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Police

That the draft Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Northern Ireland

That the draft Northern Ireland Policing Board (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.
	That the draft Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
	That the draft Policing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.  [Kevin Brennan.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

That the draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 12th March, be approved. [Kevin Brennan.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 100.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PRIVATE EQUITY FUNDS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Kevin Brennan.]

Michael Meacher: There has been a good deal of adverse publicity in the last few weeks about the operation of private equity firms, and not without good reason [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there should not be conversations going on in the Chamber when he is seeking to address the House.

Michael Meacher: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Venture capital involving investment in small start-up businesses has always played a significant role in improving performance and paving the way for expansion, but the credit-fuelled bubble that is now driving private equity deals is something quite different. That is what I want to address tonight. Private equity firms are going after healthy, well-managed firms, looting themI do not think that that is an unfair word to usein the interest of huge personal gains for themselves and often at the expense of substantial job losses for employees, and often crippling the companies with debt.
	Examples of that abound. They certainly include the Automobile Association: within months of buying it, the private equity owners Permira and CVC Capital had cut 3,400 jobs, reduced front-line services for motorists drastically, and forced employees to work, if necessary, for longer than allowed by European Union regulations on pain of losing their jobs. If they were stopped by the police and found to be in contravention of the regulations, they would be sacked anyway.
	Another example is Birds Eye. Permira pledged to keep workers' employment terms for at least three years, but within five months it had closed a plant in Hull at the cost of 600 jobs. In the case of Debenhams, the private equity partners increased the firm's debt from 100 million to 1.9 billion, paid themselves a dividend of 1.2 billion, sold the freehold of the stores for 500 million and leased them back, then floated the business and took another 600 millionthus making three and a half times their investment in a little over two years. Debenhams was left with huge interest payments, while having to pay rent on stores that it had previously owned. I need hardly addfor Members will be well aware of the factthat private equity now appears to be lining up Sainsbury's and Boots for the same kind of treatment.
	Roberto Italia, then of Warburg Pincus and now of Cinven private equityone of the doyens of private equitysaid, on a public platform,
	Of course we're out to shaft the companies we invest in.
	The engine for such private equity plundering, as I would call it, comes from three tax changes made in the last 10 years. First, in 1998 the Government introduced taper relief on capital gainsI think quite reasonably, no doubt in the interests of promoting entrepreneurshipslashing capital gains tax for people owning shares in their own companies or in unlisted businesses from 40 per cent. to just 10 per cent., provided that they owned the assets for at least 10 years. The real bonanza started in 2002, when the Governmentamazinglychanged the rules again so that people only needed to own shares for two years to qualify for the hugely valuable 10 per cent. tax concession.
	Thenno doubt the Government did not anticipate thismost companies with highly paid employees began setting up elaborate so-called share-based pay schemes designed to disguise income as capital gains. In 2003, the Government changed the rules yet again to require shares received as part of a pay package to be declared as income. The private equity gravy train nearly ground to a halt at that point. Unaccountably, however, the Government then exempted private equity from the new rules. So the gravy train rolls on, as a special deal for private equity.
	Quite apart from the morality involved, that loophole is costing the Treasury a fortune. For examplethis is the kind of thing that is being contemplated in respect of Sainsbury'sfrom a mega-fund buyout of 10 billion, the private equity partners might expect to walk away after five or six years with up to 2.8 billion. If that were taxed as income, the Government would get 1.1 billion in tax; but if it were taxed as a capital gain, the effective tax rate might be as low as 7.5 per cent., which would amount to about 210 million. The Treasury would thus lose 900 million. Official figures show that the loophole is indeed costing the Treasury a fortune, with taper relief costing the Government 4.5 billion this year, up from 550 million in 1998.

David Gauke: I note the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of taper relief, which was introduced when he was still a member of the Government. Does he recognise that it does not apply just to private equity, or indeed just to equities as a whole? It can apply to, for instance, second homes.

Michael Meacher: Of course I recognise that it has been limited. My point is that, although the Government properly imposed a limitation to prevent income from being disguised as shares, an exemption was then granted to private equity alone. I find that extraordinary, and I seek an explanation from my hon. Friend the Minister.
	Two features of private equity firms stand out: the extravagant management fees and the annual carrythe share in profits. Researchers at Manchester university recently obtained the internal management accounts of one firm with up to 8 billion of funds under management. After five years, the 30 full partners expected to make between 25 million and 50 million each.
	All this raises several questions. Does the performance of private equity funds justify the huge fees that are charged to investors? Does the elaborate financial engineering deserve its tax-deductible status, or are shareholder loans simply a device to reduce tax liabilities? As the shadow of private equity falls everywhere, is it making the gamut of private business hyper-short-termist, exacerbating still further what I regard as the lethal weakness of British industry? Is private equity merely a force for the immense enrichment of a few at the expense particularly of the employees who are taken over, but also of the long-term future of the company itself? I believe that those questions need much wider, more serious and more careful debate.
	I am the first to recognise that the private equity industry claims that it generates more jobs and faster economic growth than other sectors of the economy, but the annual economic impact survey of the British Venture Capital Associationwhich I looked updoes not show that at all. Most of the 1,400 companies surveyed are at the lower end of the industry, which, as I said at the beginning, is in a very different position. They have benefited from less than 10 million of investment from venture capital and growth investors. That is all very healthy, but only 3 per cent. of the sample in the latest edition received investments of more than 50 millionthis is where public concern liesand more than 60 per cent. of those respondents said that sales, profits and employment were the same or worse under private equity. More particularly, private equity firms always tell us about the jobs that they have allegedly createdthat is entirely fair. What they do not tell us about is the jobs that they have destroyed, or the net employment impact. That is what we need to know.
	Against that analysis, there are several actions that the Government need urgently to take, starting with the Budget on Wednesday. First, the taper relief loophole in capital gains tax and the special exemption granted specifically, and unaccountably, to private equity firms should be immediately ended. I shall look for that in the small print of the Red Book on Wednesday. Secondly, tax incentives should be staircased to encourage long-term investment of 10 years or more and to discourage in-and-out, rapid asset stripping. I believe that the phrase that is used in the trade is, Flip it and spin it. If it is, that is certainly to the bane of British industry. That needs to be strongly discouraged. We should have a tax incentives framework that strongly points in a different direction.
	Thirdly, there needs to be much better transparency in private equity operations, not least a requirement for private equity firms to provide full quarterly reports in exactly the same way as publicly quoted companies.

David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems arises where there is a carry-over from the existing ownership into the private equity firm? The private equity funding of that new firm also needs to be as transparent as possible. It does not have to be insider trading to make one question the way in which these relationships grow. Does he agree with that point?

Michael Meacher: I do. One of the incentives for a private equity takeover is to avoid the kind of accountability that has always been at the forefront of public liability companies. Any reduction in that is extremely dangerous not just for employees, but for other stakeholders and particularly for shareholders, who are often kept in the dark as much as employees. I am aware of the setting up of an internal industry working party on disclosure under the City of London grandee, Sir David Walker. I welcome that as far as it goes. That is all very well, but it is no substitute for plc transparency, which is the minimum foundation for corporate accountability. In particular, there needs to be far greater transparency about the activities of some private equity firmscertainly not all, but somein restructuring pre-existing company pension schemes, which may drastically affect workers' pension rights in future.
	Fourthly, private equity is at present largely self-regulating, which is not acceptable given the immense power that many major private equity-controlled firms now wield. I would like to quote briefly from Ernst and Young's insolvency report last year, which states:
	the amount of credit that lenders are willing to extend on PE transactions has risen substantially. Lending limits are increasing, multiples are rising, transaction structures are being extended, and covenants are weakening.
	It went on to say:
	In circumstances where many banks are involved in complex debt structures, due diligence is not as stringent. Banks are no longer in a position to sound the alarm if a company is too highly leveraged.
	That comes from an accounting company that has international prestige. It is carefully worded, but the Government should pay very careful attention to it.
	Fifthly, and most important of all, there need to be far greater rights and protection for the interests of employees in the companies that are taken over. If it is not to be casino capitalismnot necessarily my words, but that is how this is often seenwhere workers' jobs and lives are gambled like so many counters on the gaming table, the promises made beforehand on jobs by private equity predators, because that is how they are seen, to gain control of companies should be statutorily enforceable. Private equity firms should be required beforehand to provide a public interest certificate or statement of the expected and intended impacts of the takeover on jobs, pay and terms and conditions of employees, as well as on debt, investment and the longer-term future of the target company. That statement should be contractually binding for a stated period, at least as far as the employment of the workers is concerned.
	Those are just five key pointsI could pick out a number of others, but they are the key onesthat the Government must urgently consider to allay the real concerns about current private equity operations. I look forward to their being addressed on Wednesday.

Brooks Newmark: I feel that this is a bit like round two of a debate that I had with the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) on Radio Four's Today in Parliament programme last Friday. I was in the private equity industry for 14 years, and I declare an interest in this debate and draw hon. Members' attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, I get a bit of the whiff of the 1970s. It brings me back to my teens. I can only assume that his campaign slogan for the Labour leadership will be Back to the future with Michael Meacher. The reality of private equity bears no resemblance to the  Beazer comic book analysis of private equity that, unfortunately, we have just heard.
	I want to touch on several areas. On jobs, roughly one in six jobs in the private sector involves private equity. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to be concerned about the relationship between private equity houses and the employees because they employ a lot of people, but jobs in firms controlled by private equity have grown much faster than in FTSE 250 or FTSE 100 companies.
	Sales growth in private equity companies is roughly at 9 per cent. per annum. Again, the FTSE 100 companies grow at 7 per cent., FTSE 250 companies at 5 per cent. Again, exports by private equity-controlled firms grow at roughly 6 per cent. per annum, which is much faster than the national average of roughly 2 per cent.

Michael Meacher: I referred to that in my speech. I commented on the fact that the British Venture Capital Association report, which is, I think, far and away the best evidence, indicates that what the hon. Gentleman said is true at the lower end of the market and for the smaller companies. However, when one looks at the smaller number of very large companies, that is not what the respondents are saying. The results are either the same or worse than under ordinary conditions. Private equity does not display the improvement that he claims.

Brooks Newmark: The BVCA analysis relates to all private equity companies. About 1,500 companies were invested in last year. Therefore, it covers the gamut; we are talking about private equity as a whole.
	The final nail in the right hon. Gentleman's argument is to do with the notion of asset stripping. The reality is that investment by private equity firms grows at about 18 per cent. per annum, compared with the national average of about 1 per cent. per annum. Therefore, jobs are up, sales are up, exports are up and investments are up; so much for the accusation of casino capitalism, to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded in his speech.
	The private equity industry invested 11.5 billion in 1,500 companies in 2005 alone. This country has a 50 per cent. market share in Europe; that proportion is three times higher than that of our nearest competitor, which I believe is France. The City loves private equity because 3.3 billion in fees is paid to the financial services sector, the Treasury loves private equity because private equity firms pay 26 billion in taxes, and, most importantly, the pension funds love private equity because private equity firms deliver superior returns.
	The question is: where does the problem lie? It does not lie in the preferential tax treatment. The Economic Secretary admitted in a speech at the London Business School that all companies pay taxes on a level playing field. There is no special treatment for private equity firms. The problem is not to do with asset stripping either, because, as I mentioned, investment by private equity firms is 18 times higher than the national average. The problem is also not to do with just a few people lining their pockets, as the right hon. Gentleman implied. In my experience of private equity firms, the interests of the owners, the managers, the directors and the employees are aligned. Traditionally, most private equity firms have given share options to employees far deeper into the structure than have ordinary public companies or most companies in general. Therefore, when money is made, everybody is a winner, and when money is not made, no one makes money.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is making an important point. Does he agree that the following is the business position of a private equity fund: the intention is to acquire an investee company and to make money by disposing of it at a profit, and it will be able to do so only if it is disposing of a successful business that is making profits and providing a good service to its customers?

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend must be a mind reader, because that was precisely the point I was about to come on to.
	We should consider what the pension funds do. They are among the biggest backers of private equity, and I assume that they would not back private equity if they felt that there was bad behaviour or poor governance, and if by backing PE they were not giving good returns to pensionersin a trade union, for example, such as the GMB which I know invests in private equity. As my hon. Friend said, the reality is that private equity firms target underperforming assets and are a force for change, improving productivity and growth. Whether one is putting a company through the initial public offeringIPOprocess or selling it on to somebody else, no one is going to buy it if they do not see continued opportunity for growth in it.
	The key problem is to do with transparency. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton made an important point on that. When I began working in the private equity industry, buying a 25-million company was a big thing, but today there are billion-pound transactionssuch as, potentially, those involving Sainsbury's and Boots. Therefore, the impact on the economy, employees and on people in general who are customers of such businesses is much bigger. Private equity has grown from a cottage industry to a more mature industry, and more transparency is needed. That is why I welcome the initiative of the BVCA in setting up a working party under Sir David Walker. Issues to do with transparency and governance are important as the PE industry continues to mature.
	I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary have all welcomed the benefits that private equity brings to UK plc. It seems that even the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has undergone a Damascene conversion. I was interested to read that he said in a  Financial Times article of 20 February 2007 that
	equity funds can be important...and it is essential that we have a tax system that enables the City to remain the pre-eminent financial centre of the world...a return to Old Left solutions of punitive taxation is not the answer. Nor is heavy regulation.
	I wonder whether the Economic Secretary might whisper a bit louder into the ear of the right hon. Gentleman.
	Let me conclude by saying that I hope that the Economic Secretary will join me in applauding the achievements of the private equity industry, and that he will continue to safeguard Britain as a centre of excellence for private equity.

Edward Balls: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) on securing this Adjournment debate. I wish to comment in detail on some of the issues that he has raised. Before I do so, let me also congratulate the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) on his elevation from the Back Benches to an advisory role on such issues. We look forward to receiving his contributions to the Finance Bill with relish, as always, in the coming months.
	We have made great strides over the past decade in bringing about a stable economic environment to promote long-term decision making, and to promote investment, productivity, growth and job creation. We have taken important steps to make our economy more dynamic, to enhance competition and to deal with the challenges of globalisation. At the same time, our reforms to tackle short-termism and to promote long-term investment to deliver high and stable levels of growth and employment go beyond macro-economic policy; they also spread to employment, tax and industrial policy.
	Unlike the hon. Member for Braintree, I take seriously the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend. He has a track record of being concerned about the dangers of having a too short-termist approach to the economy. He knows, as do I, that there is a danger that high levels of unemployment and low levels of investment can arise if we do not tackle the sources of short-termism at root. As an employment Minister in 1997, he was involved in drawing up our new deal to take a more long-termist approach to employment policy. As Environment Minister, he pioneered the world's first ever economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in 2002, which has set an agenda in terms of the environment for a long-termist and market-based approach for dealing with carbon emission. That now has cross-party support. In other areas that perhaps are less relevant to the economy, such as clean bathing water, he also has an important record in promoting long-term investment to deliver public policy goals. Therefore, as I said, I take his concerns seriously.
	I should make it clear at this point that I wish my right hon. Friend well in his endeavours in the coming months, but I will not be one of the 44. That will come as no surprise to him.
	In order to tackle the risks of short-termism and to promote a more long-term and dynamic approach to the economy, we have introduced a number of reforms since 1997. We have introduced reforms to competition policy, because a robust and tough independent competition policy is necessary for there to be a dynamic long-term economy. We have also introduced reforms to our tax system to try to encourage long-term investment, including reform to the capital gains tax regime to promote more long-term investment, which is one of the most important reforms that we have introduced since 1997. We have promoted investment in science and innovation, and in education and skills. We have also introduced reforms in the area of corporate governance, following the reviews conducted by Paul Myners, Ron Sandler, Sir Derek Higgs and Sir Derek Morris, to help shareholdersand pension fund holders, the ultimate beneficiariesin the deep liquid and dynamic capital markets to take a more long-term view of their role, given some of the concerns addressed in the reviews.
	We start from a common view that short-termism has been a problem historically in our economy. It is important to find ways to address that and to have dynamism and competition, while taking a long-term view. At that point, however, I may part company from my right hon. Friend. The private equity debate has to be seen in the context of what is needed in economic policy to encourage a long-term view and promote long-term investment. Rather than taking a particular view of any particular form of ownership, the real issue for the economy, and for investors, savers and employees, is whether ownership structures support taking that long-term view.
	I understand my right hon. Friend's concern that private equity as a form of ownership may promote a short-term view. I am sure that he will agree that as with any form of ownership there will be private equity owners who are short-termist, but there is no intrinsic reason to believe that they are more likely to be short-termist than any other form of ownership. Therefore, there is no reason why the Government should take a view that private equity per se is bad rather than good for the economy. In fact, I agree with the general secretary of the TUC who acknowledged recently:
	Some companies have gone private genuinely to escape stock market short-termism.
	Private equity can encourage a longer term view, and that is what the evidence suggests.
	It is important to keep this debate in perspective. Private equity is still a relatively small part of the economy, but it has been growing fast in recent years. The issues that my right hon. Friend raises about risks to wider stability are serious and must be taken seriously. In a discussion paper published in November, the Financial Services Authority, the regulator of this activity, pointed to the importance of identifying potential risks that could arise from excessive leverage or unclear ownership of economic risk, and of being ready to act if necessary. The FSA also points out that such risks also arise in non-private equity ownership. We are alive to those issues.
	The evidence base is not strong, because the area has not had sufficient scrutiny, but what there is suggests that private equity firms tend to hold on to companies for longer than the average length of time that institutional investors hold shares. That is academic evidence, not simply a biased view. Private equity does tend to have a negative impact on employment in the first year, but a study by Nottingham university showed that following a leveraged buy-out employment rose strongly, with employment levels 26 per cent. higher after five years. Another academic study, of more than 35,000 UK manufacturing firms, showed a substantial increase in productivity for those firms that received private equity investment.
	The evidence is patchy and we must view it with caution. I do not wish to comment on individual cases, but I acknowledge that there will be examples of short-termist behaviour. However, the evidence does not suggest that the Government should take a particular view of one form of ownership rather than another. Indeed, as I have said publicly and clearly, private equity can play an important and positive role in our economy in terms of promoting long-term investment, turning companies around and providing jobs.
	My right hon. Friend quoted a private equity representative as saying that of course they were out to shaft the companies in which they invested, and that does not sound like a particularly long-termist view. However if, as the academic evidence shows, it has been possible for private equity firms to release value, promote productivity and, in the medium term, create jobs, one has to wonder why the previous institutional investors had not managed to do that in the first place. The general secretary of the TUC made that point in his comments on the issue.

David Gauke: The Economic Secretary makes some important points, but does he recognise that the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) speaks not only for himself, but for a large body of opinion in the Labour party, including several trade unions? The Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and for Northern Ireland have also made anti-private equity comments, and that damages confidence in that industry in this country.

Edward Balls: The private equity industry has acknowledged that it has been insufficiently open and transparent and that has partly led to some of the problems in public commentary to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. I shall not be drawn into commenting on potential leadership or deputy leadership elections, and I have not studied all of the statements that he mentions. Concerns have been raised and it is important that they are addressed. They are being addressed in two different ways.
	First, I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton that the same level of reporting is required in a listed company and in a non-listed private equity company. On the other hand, clear, consistent and complete information is important. There have been improvements in best practice, but there is further to go and that is why we welcomed the announcement that Sir David Walkerwho is well qualified to do the workis to chair an independent working party to develop a voluntary comply-or-explain code to improve the private equity industry's transparency and level of disclosure. We welcome that review and that move in the direction of transparency, which I hope will help to allay some of the concerns that have been raised.
	My second point relates to taxation. As I said, we have promoted several ways in which venture capital, and investment funds more widely, can support start-up companies and turnaround investment. They include the enterprise investment scheme, research and development tax credits and the capital gains tax taper relief. At the same time, we have been concerned that shareholder debt may be replacing the equity element in some highly leveraged private equity funding arrangementsa form of risk-bearing equity that is being treated as debt for tax purposes. We have rules to deal with those matters but, as Members know, about 10 days ago I announced a review to look at that issue in particular so that we can ensure that the current rules applying to the use of shareholder debt in such investments, where it replaces the equity element in highly leveraged deals, are working as intended. That will help to ensure that we have a long-term and consistent view.

David Gauke: rose

Edward Balls: I was about to end by commenting on the six points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton but I will take one more intervention.

David Gauke: I am grateful to the Economic Secretary. Some of the concerns about private equity relate not to transparency or indeed to specific tax treatment but to bonuses. Does he share the view of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and for Wales and other ministerial colleagues about bonuses, or does he think that is not a matter for the Government?

Edward Balls: Of course it is a matter for the Government. Our objective is both to promote long-term investment in jobs in our economy and to ensure that our tax rules work fairly, which is precisely why I announced a review into the borderline issues between debt and equity. However, I want to answer the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton in his Adjournment debate. If I fail to cover the points raised by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), perhaps he will come back on them.
	First, my right hon. Friend referred to taper relief as a loophole. It is not a loophole; the Government made a deliberate decision to build consensus for a longer-term view of capital gains tax legislation and operation, which is widely supported by British industry. That is why the venture capital industry refers to the UK as a prime location for investment. Given the evidence I set out earlier about why that investment tends to work to the benefit of investment in jobs, that decision is all to the good.
	Secondly, my right hon. Friend made a point about staircasing. We have been careful to ensure that the rules on capital gains tax relief reward risk and long-term investment but are also fair, which is why there are limits on their application.
	Thirdly, my right hon. Friend spoke about the restructuring of company pension schemes. He referred to fears that adverse developments could occur, but we set up the pension regulator and strengthened the role of trustees precisely to make sure that the interests of pension scheme members are properly protected. I hope he will join me in supporting reforms for the proper protection of pensioners.
	My right hon. Friend referred to the possibility that private equity firms might be trying to obtain particular benefit by disguising remuneration as capital gains rather than income. There is a careful balance to be struck between promoting investment reward and risk and making sure that the tax system operates fairly, and we keep it under review at all times. It is well known to Members that since February 2006 we have been looking at how employment-related securities carrying interest apply, but over the past decade I think we have been striking correctly the balance between fairness and the promotion of jobs and investment.
	Fourthly, my right hon. Friend referred to the importance of greater transparency. That is why we welcomed Sir David Walker's code and why we legislated in the Companies Act 2006 for more broad-based disclosure by medium and large companies.
	Fifthly, my right hon. Friend asked that the provision of tax relief for leveraged buy-outs should be ended and suggested that in so doing we should disadvantage private equity in the tax system relative to other forms of ownership. As I made clear in a speech 10 days ago, that will not be the Government's approach. In fact, having quoted the TUC, I shall now refer to the words of the deputy director general of the CBI who said that ending the relief for interest costs
	would seriously damage long-term investment by UK companies both large and small.
	That is not a mistake we intend to make.
	Finally, my right hon. Friend calls for greater transparency in the run-up to takeovers. As I said, in the Companies Act and in supporting the disclosure code we encouraged a greater spirit of openness and transparency in the private equity industry so that the general case can be made for the impact of those qualities on investment and job creation.

Michael Meacher: I appreciate the great detail with which the Minister has gone into my arguments and his very fair and balanced answers. On the last point, however, I did not ask for greater openness. I said that in the course of major and important takeovers, which can have massive effects on employees of the said company, there should be a requirement for a public statement or certificate that sets out what the private equity firm intends in respect of employment, pay, terms and conditions over a stated periodit cannot, of course, be indefiniteas well as in respect of debt, investment and the long-term future of the company. Given the importance and power of these companies and their significant role within the overall economy, it is reasonable that they be required to do that. Does my hon. Friend agree and, if so, should it not be enforceable?

Edward Balls: I made the point that I welcomed Sir David Walker's review into greater disclosure. I also think it right that the new business review will expand the information available to stakeholders, employees and the wider community. I do not think it right, however, to have a particular set of rules that disadvantage private equity companies relative to other parts of the economy. My right hon. Friend makes a broader point about disclosure, and I would expect, as the evidence suggests, that any company genuinely seeking to add value would want to have a consensus in the workplace, as well as with customers, as to the actions that are needed to turn a company around and promote greater investment and jobs in the medium term. I do not believe it right for us to impose a particular set of rules on private equity in that particular area that differ from those that are applied more broadly in the economy.
	To conclude, I hope that I have shown both in my speech of 10 days ago and in tonight's debate that we take very seriously the points made on all sides of the House and all sides of industry regarding this matter. There are actions that need to be taken by private equity companies themselves, and we are closely watching developments in the area of disclosure; there are actions that the Government can take, and I have alluded to our tax review; and there are actions that need to be taken in the wider economy to ensure that shareholders, institutional investors and companies take a more long-term view of their responsibilities. In my view, that is the way to promote long-term growth in employment in our economy. We should not demonise a particular sector, but instead promote more long-term growth and job creation in our economy. That is the approach that will continue to guide this party in government.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Nine o'clock.